That's true as a matter of personal ethic, but it's not legally binding. Having worked in the automotive press for many years, I know writers have to sign for embargoed information. That's legally binding. The embargos don't permit the communication of the material to anyone, even on a one-to-one basis. So the embargo has essentially been violated already at some point in the chain, probably by the person who told Aaron. Because I doubt that Aaron had to sign for the information, although someone did at some point in the chain. Now it's just spreading a rumor. But I find the coy: We know but we can't tell you messages here to be very juvenile. Paul On Aug 26, 2006, at 7:29 AM, John Forbes wrote:
> He is embargoed if he was given information on condition that he keep > quiet about it. > > John > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:41:58 +0100, Paul Stenquist > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> By the way, anyone who has knowledge of the K10 camera and who is not >> a camera dealer or a journalist is in no way obligated to observe an >> embargo on information. >> Paul >> On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:33 PM, David Savage wrote: >> >>> I ain't playing your guessing game this time. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> On 8/26/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
