It wasn't just a guessing game. Obviously, the information was sent via 
private mail to a number of members of the list, who now wink at each 
other as they preach about the sacredness of the embargo.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:22 PM, graywolf wrote:

> But, keeping quite about it also means not mentioning it at all. Making
> it a guessing game violates that promise to my way of thinking. Which
> reminds me of an old joke.
>
> The warden is instructing newly hired guards, "If you see two inmates
> talking, break it up. If there are more than two, don't worry about it
> because at least one of them is reporting to me."
>
> -- 
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> -----------------------------------
>
>
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> It's more than that Paul. If you have a source which gives you info on
>> the condition you keep quiet about it, you should, or next time that
>> source won't tell you. It's more tha personal ethics, it's a matter of
>> not burning someone who did you a favour. You may not have signed the
>> NDA, but the source probably did, so they're teh ones who will get 
>> into
>> trouble.
>>
>> Like others, I have access to the information in question. I'm not 
>> going
>> to divulge it as I don't want my source to get into trouble. Until 
>> know
>> I've avoided letting on that I knew about it, having stuck to pointing
>> out what it couldn't be based on Aaron's posts.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> 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
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Reply via email to