[Vision2020] Questions about the flier
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:38:06 -0800
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Dale, </P>
<P>After Bill London posted our town’s favorite flier to Vision 2020, I was surprised by its content, which didn’t match the descriptions I had read in your posts after the first Daily News article came out. To make sure, I went back and looked at what you said about the flier. On October 13<SUP>th</SUP>, you said the flier "was designed to be slanderous and inciting." The next day, it was "an anonymous flier that was designed to be slanderous and intentionally mislead the town. Hmm, let's see: anonymous flier, factually incorrect data, slanderous material, intentionally misleading material."</P>
<P>On October 16<SUP>th</SUP>, you described it as a "deliberately inflammatory, misleading, and incorrect anonymous flier," and the next day "the flier wasn't accurate; it was designed to slander and mislead." </P>
<P>You later posted your letter to the editor of the Argonaut which read in part, "Dear editor, The Daily News editors decided to run a headline story based on information from an incorrect, inflammatory and anonymous flier." </P>
<P>Since then, Doug Wilson has confirmed that the flier that Bill London posted was the same flier that led to the Daily News story, as far as he knows. According to London, the only inaccuracy he found was that a quote from the Wilkins/Wilson pamphlet was attributed to page 16, not page 17. Other than that, the quotes were accurately recorded. Certainly the flier never said the conference was about slavery.</P>
<P>Can you tell me how can we reconcile your description of the flier with what it actually says? It is an anonymous flier, you are correct there; but what about the rest of your descriptions? Is the flier "deliberately inflammatory" because it contains accurate quotes? </P>
<P>Had you seen the flier yourself before you started telling us about how slanderous and incorrect it was? If you had seen it, then you would have known it was not slanderous, since it used the authors’ own words accurately. You also would have known that it did not say the conference was about slavery. If that is the case, then you would have known that your description was not accurate. </P>
<P>It’s also possible you never saw the flier, but proceeded to describe it based upon what you had heard about it. If so, you seem to have jumped to a few conclusions, don’t you think? Brings to my mind your response to someone else’s post on October 17<SUP>th</SUP>:</P>
<P>"><I> Better yet. If somebody has a copy of the flyer, could they scan it and post it for review by all? </I>Nah! It's much more intellectually stimulating to discuss something that no one has actually read. *Much* easier to distort the facts that way, don't-cha know. Best, Dale" You weren't trying to distort the facts, were you? </P>
<P>Anyhow, all this leaves me confused; I simply cannot reconcile the flier with your posts. Can you clear any of this up?</P>
<P>Cheers,</P>
<P>Sunil</P>
<P><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2755??PS=">Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan.</a> </html>