From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: for the record
To: lml
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:01:08 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1565914@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B3286E8D@lucky.dts.local>
References: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B3286E8D@lucky.dts.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

  Kevin,
  
  I don't disagree, but its two different issues; one is a newspaper and
  the other is a history book.  The history book waits for all the facts
  to be sorted out (and then somebody puts a historical spin on it), then
  it is published.
  
  It's contrary to our nature to not want immediate information, even if
  it is not complete or whole accurate.  The peril with speculation and
  drawing conclusions from an incomplete set of facts lies with the
  author.  The author of the correspondence has a very high level of
  responsibility to the accident victim's), companies, witnesses and not
  the least, the readers to differentiate between fact, speculation and
  tentative conclusions.  Unfortunately, this responsibility is not always
  discharged at the level that we would like to see, but we are grown ups
  (at least I try to act like one most times) and when we read
  posting/newspapers/magazine/6 O'clock news, we should have our BS filter
  fully armed and at the ready.
  
  In short the recipient of the information has a shared responsibility
  with the author of the information for interpretation.
  
  Chuck Jensen