[meteorite-list] Clarification Of A Clarification

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:36:45 -0800
Message-ID: <fa9a968e-45c3-52ef-b69c-55cbc52b4178_at_centurylink.net>


There is a difference between the terms defaulting and stealing.
Stealing is a criminal term and defaulting is a civil one. I never used
the word stealing so please do not put words in my mouth. I also never
admitted to using faulty information either as you state but will not
post word of mouth statements in the future since they are only as
reliable as the person supplying them and one has to rely on memory to
recount them. I agree that written statements are always better.

I was publicly accused of self-pairing and "Gaslighting" by the person
you are trying to defend who injected himself into the debate with these
false accusations and this was not the first time. Anne, where is your
concern for others reputations that were accuse of similar things, by
the same person, which are well documented in the archives? I am not
asking for an apology but if it makes this situation right,

I apologize.


On 11/9/2017 4:37 PM, Anne Black wrote:
> 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
> -----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, resu
lted > 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.pa
Received on Thu 09 Nov 2017 08:36:45 PM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb