[meteorite-list] Clarification Of A Clarification

From: Anne Black <impactika_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:37:19 -0500
Message-ID: <15fa35c0dbc-c0f-1230c_at_webjas-vad163.srv.aolmail.net>

Adam,

On behalf of probably quite a few people, thank you for your not-very-clear Clarification of a Clarification. And for admitting that you used faulty information to accuse someone of stealing.
However we all live in a world where trust is everything and where someone's reputation can be wrecked by one single email, so this is not enough.
You accused someone of stealing Publicly, now you need to take back that accusation and apologize just as Publicly.

It is only fair.

Anne M. Black
IMPACTIKA.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
To: metlist <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 9, 2017 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Clarification Of A Clarification

I was asked how this information was "conveyed" to me and to clarify the phrase "This information was conveyed to me at a later date."This information was conveyed to me by word of mouth without supporting documentation by a person who claimed to have first-hand knowledge and involvement in the deal.I am not interested in addressing syntax-semantics any further since it could easily escalate into a sub-debate not related to meteorites,AdamOn 11/7/2017 6:06 PM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list wrote:> > In an attempt to be as clear as possible, I must clarify a statement I > posted to the list on November 5th:> > The statement below which was made during the debate that escalated into > arguments, was not clearly articulated and could be taken as a single > event, when in actuality, it was two:> > ************************************************************************> The complaint against you, on the other hand, about self-pairing a Black > Beauty stone, which was never paid for according to the seller, result
ed > in a different outcome.> > ************************************************************************> > The part that reads "which was never paid for according to the seller" > was a qualifying statement in regards to the stone and not part of the > original self-pairing complaint to the IMCA.? This information was > conveyed to me at a later date.> > The IMCA doesn't consider complaints about non-paying parties that > default on agreements.> > Adam> ______________________________________________> > Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and > the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com> Meteorite-list mailing list> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list> ______________________________________________Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.comMeteorite-list mailing listMeteorite-list at meteoritecentral.comhttps://pairlist3.pair
.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 09 Nov 2017 07:37:19 PM PST