Discussion in 'New York' started by TuckernotSucker, Apr 5, 2001.
Rob use email!
Cell phone is unlisted!
Miss you too...Hope all is well with you..your cell phone work???
Dawn- Rasberry Martini with Chambourg- Yummy!
Ok- when would you like me to make you one!!
No one ever asked me that. Could it just be a long island thing?
Dawn!!!! warm hugs to you ) call me as i will be circling LI this week, would love to see you !
[Edited by candie on 07-08-2001 at 09:24 PM]
miss you too sweety.....
geez i need a drink
how about a rasberry martini guys where can i find a great bartender to make me one.. pout..
Hello EZ tucker ROb Ozzy wimpy little guy gooey and Cm, and rooster and candie and all of you i love so much.. i get lonely sometimes for some of those voices.. course the ones in my head keep me busy.... grin wink giggle
before an occasion arises that will give Ozzy cause to shout at me, "YFH!", i would like to retract this remark.
i still believe it is the case that innuendo has a tendency to cause the innocent to appear guilty, and the guilty to appear innocent.
however, on reflection, i realize that silence is even worse. as a practical matter, someone has to get the ball rolling.
in a perfect world, whistleblowers would be completely unbiased and candid -- and they would not be 'doubly victimized' for tellng the truth.
but, it's not a perfect world. so, in pursuing truth, we have to work with the world we've got. and, to repeat myself, whatever the drawbacks of innuendo, i realize that silence is not the answer.
Pre-ponderance of evidence I like to call it.
As those others have said before, one or two guys saying he had a terrible time without at least telling why and suggesting that maybe the 2 of you just didn't click or some other reason for the less than satisfying session would just be ignored by the rest of us.
I'd buy you a drink too darlin' and I'm a lot closer than Ozzy. You just don't seem to want to talk to me.
thank you, W, for your comment above.
please allow me to complete the tableau. in the case where it is the charge that is a nonspecific innuendo (eg, `she's unspeakably dishonest`), two opposing camps will develop. one side will insist that there is nothing to the charge; the other will be equally insistent that she is guilty of something even worse than what she (supposedly) did.
therefore, neither side can be persuaded by the other, because both sides are wrong. meanwhile, she is believed to be much worse than she is by some, and much better than she is by others.
[Edited by guy catelli on 04-10-2001 at 07:38 PM]
if i may: there's a distinction to be made between, on the one hand, publicly making a specific charge, based upon specific publicly available evidence; and, on the other hand, making a vague innuendo of 'evil-doing', or, as here, a vague innuendo about the identity of the (supposed) 'evil-doer'.
had W made the charge he was considering about a new poster, the person charged would have had the opportunity to rebut the charge. and, readers could have examined both the charge and the evidence, and decided for themselves whether they felt W's inference was warranted. after all, it wouldn't have been the first case of someone posing as butter who was actually bitter.
but, as in this instance, when an unidentified person is referenced merely by innuendo that could apply to many, it is the worst of both world's: the (supposedly) 'guilty' party is protected, while innocent parties are put under a cloud of suspicion.
in other words: either make a specific accusation against a specific person; or don't make any accusation at all.
Of course I remember what I posted. And as an addendeum to what I previous wrote.
If you would don't name the providers who have mentioned to you the name of the client/UG member, then there is no need to bring up the speculation for those who are in the know and for many who are not in the know.
Bottom line is if you weren't going to show your hand, you should have just folded and never brought up the sitution.
An example:There was a thread a few weeks ago. I thought one of the posters was actually a client. Now I would have been wrong if I posted in the thread "Hey, I think one of the is new guys is in this thread is actually ??????". Well, it turned out that the new poster was not. And if I or some else openly speculated about that then we would be wrong. (I am trying to draw a parable here.)
[Edited by Wimpy on 04-10-2001 at 12:57 PM]
Do you remember writing the following? Before you ask me to state who the person is, maybe you should follow your own suggestion and "state" the providers to which you were referring.
Since this Gerald character popped up, I have had a hard time(no pun) getting appointments with a few well known providers. I won't name the providers but I give them references and hell I appreciate that they want to check my info out.
i was not speaking of guy..
nor was tucker... as far as i know..
Guy is a trusted friend and nice guy....
hugzz to guy.....
So THAT'S what their calling it now, "avoiding controversy"
Not that I need to defend anyone, but if you make a statement like that. Then...say who it is, rather than lead us to speculate who. I don't think we need innuendo's or such things. That's a pretty bold statement. And for those who are in the "know" and for those are "not in the know", this could be damaging. So, unless you are going to say who it is or back it up then we don't need the innuendo.
i try to avoid controversy as much as possible.
Separate names with a comma.