Comments on: More on Orlowski’s Emailgate http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/more-on-orlowskis-emailgate.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:09:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/more-on-orlowskis-emailgate.html/comment-page-1#comment-19326 Anonymous Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:57:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=3432#comment-19326 For all the pedants out there, the phrase should be "bald-faced liar" or "barefaced liar", as in "done without shame: barefaced, blatant, brazen."<br /><br />As for Mr Orlowski's status in the bald-faced lying stakes... It would seem that, at best, he is guilty of using purportedly verbatim quotes without checking their accuracy. At worse, no whiskers on him. For all the pedants out there, the phrase should be “bald-faced liar” or “barefaced liar”, as in “done without shame: barefaced, blatant, brazen.”

As for Mr Orlowski’s status in the bald-faced lying stakes… It would seem that, at best, he is guilty of using purportedly verbatim quotes without checking their accuracy. At worse, no whiskers on him.

]]> By: Robert Scoble http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/more-on-orlowskis-emailgate.html/comment-page-1#comment-19327 Robert Scoble Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:47:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=3432#comment-19327 The source isn't anonymous. Christopher Coulter was the guy I emailed. The source isn’t anonymous. Christopher Coulter was the guy I emailed.

]]> By: Kent http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/more-on-orlowskis-emailgate.html/comment-page-1#comment-19328 Kent Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:20:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=3432#comment-19328 I think it will be interesting to read his response, if any. Your lawyers (or just the presence thereof) will put him in the position of either having to take the heat for his "anonymous" source or torching his "anonymous" source by claiming the email was altered before he got it.<br /><br />I am 100% in your court on this one. My earlier comment, like Thomas's posts, was just carefully worded. I think it will be interesting to read his response, if any. Your lawyers (or just the presence thereof) will put him in the position of either having to take the heat for his “anonymous” source or torching his “anonymous” source by claiming the email was altered before he got it.

I am 100% in your court on this one. My earlier comment, like Thomas’s posts, was just carefully worded.

]]> By: Robert Scoble http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/more-on-orlowskis-emailgate.html/comment-page-1#comment-19329 Robert Scoble Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:42:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=3432#comment-19329 Kent: let's be clear about this. I did send an email But it didn't contain the words that Andrew said it did.<br /><br />He didn't check with me to verify that I, indeed, sent the email.<br /><br />He now has proof that I didn't send it. My lawyers now have that proof. He still hasn't retracted it. Kent: let’s be clear about this. I did send an email But it didn’t contain the words that Andrew said it did.

He didn’t check with me to verify that I, indeed, sent the email.

He now has proof that I didn’t send it. My lawyers now have that proof. He still hasn’t retracted it.

]]> By: Kent http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/more-on-orlowskis-emailgate.html/comment-page-1#comment-19330 Kent Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:30:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=3432#comment-19330 Great post. I think anyone who is attacking you over your prior posts either has some other axe to grind and/or relationship to protect.<br /><br />When this guy quoted a private email with that sort of content, he knew it was going to create a reaction (that's probably why he did it). He should have been prepared from minute one to back up his quotes and assertions with proof. Maybe he has (to his editor), but there's no public response that I've seen.<br /><br />Scoble ought to ask the recipients of the email he did send (assuming it's not a huge number) to confirm whether or not they forwarded it. If he can figure out who sent the email to the reporter, then he'd be one step away from determining if it had been altered.<br /><br />The bottom line is that whoever's telling the truth here probably has a way to prove it, if he wants to. Great post. I think anyone who is attacking you over your prior posts either has some other axe to grind and/or relationship to protect.

When this guy quoted a private email with that sort of content, he knew it was going to create a reaction (that’s probably why he did it). He should have been prepared from minute one to back up his quotes and assertions with proof. Maybe he has (to his editor), but there’s no public response that I’ve seen.

Scoble ought to ask the recipients of the email he did send (assuming it’s not a huge number) to confirm whether or not they forwarded it. If he can figure out who sent the email to the reporter, then he’d be one step away from determining if it had been altered.

The bottom line is that whoever’s telling the truth here probably has a way to prove it, if he wants to.

]]>