I know CC's all over this but it really can't get enough attention. As PSA so deliciously states it here, Five Feet of Crazy™ is most definitely in full-metal “oopsie dance” mode. This is like the Ollie North Iran/Contra shredathon but in cyberspace ... where nothing is ever really gone. Google cache anyone?
I HAVE EDITED MY ORIGINAL POST HERE to include the words "alleged" and "claimed" because, quite naturally, the information stated with such confidence in FreeDominion's original post is now being challenged and questioned by others.
This is an ongoing matter with accusations and evidence on both sides, and it was reckless of me to write about it here as if the matter was completely settled.
The bell cannot be unrung.
No, indeed “the bell cannot be unrung” and you, my drooling little righttard, cannot unfuck your hilarious fuck-up. A fuck-up of biblical proportions, I might add. And just a friendly piece of advice ... editing the post does not absolve you of anything. You're not really that stupid, are you?
I eagerly await further shenanigans.
Backpedalling for everyone! This just keeps getting better – should we be expecting some backtracking from Darcey at Dust My Broom? The Radical Press? Jay Currie? No Apologies? And Five Feet’s personal hero, and object of her oh-so icky mancrush, Mark Steyn himself. Pass the popcorn, CC, and stop hogging the couch, PSA.
3 comments:
I bet Kate is real happy she gave the keys to the blog to Kathy now!
I hate to be the one who throws cold water on this, but in my opinion the mere insertion of an "allegedly" and a "claimed" into the original communication does not constitute a "retraction." To "retract" something, in my opinion, you have to "take it back."
The importance of a retraction is that in some jurisdictions, a sufficient retraction is considered sufficient evidence of good faith to protect a defendant in a libel action from punitive or exemplary damages. While inserting an "allegedly" and a "claimed" in an original publication may — other things being equal — transform a defamatory communication into a fair comment, in my opinion, merely inserting an "allegedly" and a "claimed" into a prior, defamatory publication, does not constitute withdrawing the defamatory statement. In my opinion, all Kate has done is admit she cannot prove the truth of the statement. Under this view, Kate's cute but dismissive response to the notice to retract probably did her more harm than good.
It seems to me that in Canada, the ultimate issue is "good faith." Look at Kate's amended post and tell me if you think that's "good faith."
Careful, seer ... it's Kathy, not Kate, who's in deep doo-doo here.
Post a Comment