[EM] Mike's "mistake"

[Russ Paielli]

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, Russ announced RAV as a new proposal. Then, later 
> it was pointed out (but not in a scolding way) that the method had been 
> previously proposed by someone else.
> 
> If the archives show that I was mistaken about that, that doesn't mean 
> that I lied. It merely means that I was mistaken. I said it only because 
> it seems to me that Russ announced RAV as a new propopsal, and that 
> later someone pointed out that it wasn't.

*If* the archives show you were mistaken? Read the link I supplied. *I* 
pointed out myself, in my very first post on the subject, that the 
method had been proposed before. But even if I hadn't, I still did not 
and would not claim that the proposal was original without at least 
attempting verify that it was. The very notion that I would do such a 
thing is an insult to my character -- and I think you know that.

Mistakes are understandable, but not when you are making damaging claims 
about another person's character. Before you make a claim like that, you 
are obligated to verify it. That's just common-sense ethics. Otherwise 
you risk making an ass of yourself, which you did.

If you are willing to admit you were wrong, both factually and 
ethically, then I am willing to forgive and forget the matter. However, 
I doubt you are big enough to apologize even when you are caught red-handed.

I did not read the rest of your post.