Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00328)

Dear Bart,

I see your point.  One can indeed fabricate a statement that was never made in an
email exchange.  However, the original (correct) message had already been posted to x
number of subscribers and is archived by the moderator.  For instance, in this case,
I can always go back to Eldon (the theos-talk moderator) and ask him to repost my
original message--thus exposing your quote to be a fabrication thus damaging your
credibility instead of mine.  If I were to find that Eldon is for some bizarre reason
part of your conspiracy, I can always request the readers who archive their own
copies (some do) to repost the true quote.  Anything you post on email continues to
exist somewhere, even after you had erased your own copy.  So even in this extreme
example, there is always a way to bring out the truth in this media.  So I think the
real reason why Wheaton does not want a representative spokesperson on email is
because they will not be able to control the questions and criticisms they may
receive on this media.  If they receive a question or criticism intended to be
published in the AT/Quest magazine,  they have the option of: publishing it as it
is,  ignoring it, or publishing it in an edited or altered form.  On the Internet
they don't have the advantage of these choices.  If they were to unfairly edit or
alter a question or statement for reply, the questioner is likely to call them on it,
and he/she will have the original post in the archives for proof.  In other words,
Wheaton will have to deal with everyone on a level playing field if they were to
choose to enter this media through a neutral site like theos-talk.  At present, all
of their media of communication (AT/Quest, Messenger, letters to members, ts-l, nl-l)
are completely under their control.  Why would they want to have it any other way?

jhe


Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>
> > So to return to my original point, since the internet is an equal playing
> > field, there is no danger of  a Wheaton representative's contributions being
> > twisted (as you suggested) because they will always have a recourse.
>
>     Except that John Mead does not let his feelings blind him to the facts. Let's
> say that I quoted:
>
> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
> > and just last week, I despoiled a young goat
>
>     How do you prove that you never said such a thing, or if someone uses the
> above, how do you prove that it was designed as an absurd example and not a
> genuine admission?
>
>     Bart Lidofsky
>
> P.S. The despoiling young goats reference comes from writer Marion Zimmer
> Bradley, who created it for a story where she wanted to create a ridiculous but
> vicious regional slur ("You're a despoiler of young goats!" "No, YOU'RE a
> despoiler of young goats!" The punch line was that the villain of the piece
> actually WAS a despoiler of young goats. I have since used it when I wanted to
> give an example of an accusation which is so ridiculous that nobody in their
> right mind would take it seriously.
>