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
