Re Alejandro R's [6720]: > Your "handling" of *private*, *mis-sent* correspondence was too much for > me. Since Alejandro has chosen, despite the request of Alan and myself, to re-open the discussion on-list, I will reluctantly respond: Let's start with the facts which can be *proven*: 1) An email was unintentionally addressed _to me_ by Alan in which he was addressing someone outside of the list about a matter under consideration before the list. Included within Alan's email was a private message that I wrote to someone else and in which I had cc'd AF. AF's email was cc'd to 3 other listmembers. 2) Upon receiving the email, I sent a response to Alan and the 3 who were cc'd. Only Alan responded. In his response, he *did* give me explicit written permission to send that email to others and there were *no* conditions that he stated at that time about what I could or could not do with that email. Period. HAD ALAN NOT GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO DO SO THEN HIS MESSAGE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS. 3) Obviously, things have not developed according to Alan's plan, but let me note: a) In [6672] I did not mention Alan's name. Had it not been for _Alan himself_ then there would have been no mention on-list of the author's name. b) the IDD was not made "public" as Alejandro and Alan have falsely claimed. It was made available: i) off-list to listmembers upon request; and ii) by Alan himself (I presume) since I referred a listmember who had requested a copy to Alan as per _his_ request in [6676]. c) based on 2) I _could have_ just forwarded Alan's email to the list. I chose not to. d) I deleted the email addresses and the names of those that Alan cc'd since Alan himself had suggested that the inclusion of their names would unfairly prejudice listmembers against the 3. e) I cautioned listmembers in [6672] that the "intended recipient of the email" can not be held responsible for what the author of the email wrote. This, again, was in direct response to a concern that Alan voiced. > The botton line is that the list moderator of OPE-L --Jerry Levy-- <snip, JL> The bottom line is that I acted appropriately and showed in practice a willingness to deal with Alan's concerns. Indeed, the day before [6672] was sent I made numerous efforts to reach a settlement with Alan, the 3, and the recipient of Alan's email. If the full truth were known, everyone would see how Alan and Co. refused to reach an agreement and indeed escalated the tensions by raising old (and false) charges. Those who have read the IDD -- and the 3 (or more) who received copies of the original email from Alan -- will note that the play that was scripted in advance in his email is being played-out before us now. In solidarity, Jerry PS to Alejandro: did you give _any_ thought at all to the possible health consequences of conspiring to make me "sweat"? Alan _intentionally_ wanted to place stress on me and succeeded to the point where, (just a few minutes after writing an email to you concerning a Spanish-speaking person who communicated with me) on the "G" train in Brooklyn, I had chest pain. I took an aspirin and waited for the pain to subside (or get worse). I remember smiling, though, with dark humor at the possibility of dying on the same day as I received Alan's email and how he -- and I presumed, the 3 -- would feel responsible. So, dear friend, please consider that as you are walking out the door. You feel injured -- poor Ale. How would you have felt had I died? Now I am stressed again and have to get off-line and chill out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST