In Reply to: Re: Agree. Trial and conviction might be a tad premature. posted by newyorkp7 on February 20, 2007 at 06:35:43:
I, too, know the names of the cable company and the reviewer. However, I was not party to the transaction, nor was anyone else here. It would be morally and legally inappropriate, if not irresponsible, to comment on what attorneys refer to as "facts not in evidence". Some of what we say on a public forum could turn out to be, at the very least, partially incorrect. Such misinformation could further damage reputations. Rumor and innuendo are rampant, the townspeople are carrying pitchforks and torches, and one magazine is already suffering financially to some degree. Right or wrong, it's their legal and ethical problem to deal with.Regarding disclosure, it is clearly the responsibility and right of the participants to shed light upon these matters, if they choose to do so. We may all be holding our breath for a very long time. Again, we were not direct parties to the transaction.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Naming names.... - alan m. kafton 13:32:21 02/20/07 (1)
- If police have a "blue wall", - mt10425 12:05:12 03/06/07 (0)