I reach for my gun

[Vaska]

Henry Musikar wrote:
>Sounds like you gave permission. Sounds like Charles said that he 
>posted to the list by mistake. Of course, your use of the word 
>"claims" suggests that you don't believe him [....]
>
>It's really pretty simple. Don't publish private messages unless 
>there is an overwhelming need.

Henry, I'm not surprised you're confused, because the whole thing is
baffling to the nth degree.

Let me try to explain: after asking me for a *public* reponse to two of his
*originally private* messages, and after having received my permission to
make both public, and after then saying that I should do so if *I* think it
worth it [please note these turns: Charles had asked me to make public his
private messages so that I would then give him a public response: I had no
wish to spend any more time on it], Charles then writes to everyone that
he'd *by mistake* posted the first message privately and will now correct
that error by placing it on the list.  What the fuck is going on and in aid
of what? 

I published those once private messages only after Charles's claim that the
first one was only inadvertently private [and his deliberate suppression of
the fact that he'd invited me to make them public]. Inadvertently my foot:
he did say, in his second message to me, that he'd sent both of them
privately [i.e. intentially so, no mistake about it] although he feels he
has a right to a public response [to privately posted messages?].  And when
I gave him the permission to do what he liked with them, he wrote back to
tell me the decision should be mine if *I* [I did not even suggest it] feel
the debate should go public.  Finally, he then posted publicly his first
[intentionally private] message while claiming that it was all along meant
for the list.  My mind reels.  

I'm not talking about any breech of netiquette here: I've been guilty of it
and I apologized.  I'm talking now of statements meant and intended to
mislead the list, viz. "The following message was to have been posted to the
list, but in my 
rush this morning I pressed the wrong sequence of buttons, I hope 
that it does not come too late to discourage the latest defection". 

I wouldn't have had a word to say on any of this if Charles had simply
stated what is the case: he's had some private correspondence with me, had
changed his mind about keeping it private, had got my permission to post it
to the list, had then asked ME to do so [Charles: "If we are engaged in a
"debate" that you feel might be of interest to the list, then I would ask
you to use your judgment about going public."], and seeing that I did not
think any of it was of any great import to the list, had decided to post
only one of those messages here [overruling my invitation that he do so with
the whole series of these posts].

Why?  Out of guilt perhaps for standing by and saying nothing about what
Harrison went through?  Or from some other murkier motive I can't begin to
fathom?  This is not funny, any more, guys.  And anyone who thinks so should
really think twice.

Vaska