Re: [asa] Hadley files stolen and published on the internet...

Just a word here. I had asked Janice Matchett to not send me anymore
of her emails whch are masked as ASA posts.

She said she would -- then did it again.

When I pointed out out her that she was doing what she said she would
not do, she said "sorry -- it was an oversight."

 Then she did it again. Fortunately, Ian showed me how to place on my
"blocked" list.

She is pretty tricky though, and I have little doubt that I'll hear
from her again. Several on this list have told me privately that they
have had similar experiences.

I see FAux "news" made these emails a headline topic, sating "AGW is
now dead." I suspect that Rage RAdio did the same.

In response to Ted -- I see the case as more "investigative
journalism" than anything else.

On 11/23/09, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> My answers to your questions interspersed...
>
> Ted Davis wrote:
>> In light of the conversation about the Hadley files, I have a few
>> questions to ask. I assure everyone that they are open questions, not
>> leading questions. Here we go:
>>
>> (1) Is this particular incident any different, in principle, to having
>> the "wedge" document from TDI made available publicly, after it was
>> hacked from the TDI web site?
> No. That too was a morally questionable act and perhaps even an illegal
> one? If the later, the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the full
> extent of the law.
>
> My hands, incidentally, are clean with respect to the "wedge" document -
> so I am rather enjoying, at this moment, the pure, unsullied air of the
> moral high ground. The interesting thing about being up here is the way
> in which the clouds go sailing by - it's an interesting combination:
> Absolute clarity of view one moment and having ones head in the clouds
> the next...
>
> I will say that I think the DI has not denied an agenda behind the wedge
> document in the same way as scientists have denied an agenda behind
> Global Warming theories? I also think that the wedge document does not
> contain anything which remotely questions ID itself - only lays out a
> social/political strategy which the DI wanted to keep low-profile for
> strategic reasons?
>
> Nothing questionable in the DI's behaviour here, as far as I can tell -
> so chalk up another parallel between authors of the wedge document and
> the authors of the CRU e-mail's. :)
>>
>> (2) Is this particular incident any different, in principle, to
>> reporters calling up government officials/employees, and getting them
>> to admit (with promises of confidentiality) to certain activities
>> and/or conversations that would otherwise not be known to the general
>> public? In other words, can this be seen as equivalent to
>> investigative journalism?
> It might. But even if it were directly identified, it still doesn't help
> further the question as to whether the practice is morally acceptable.
>>
>> I can see a public policy component in this incident, and for that
>> reason I am not seeing any reasons to distinguish this incident from
>> the types mentioned above. Obviously I may be missing something, or
>> others may see it differently even if I am not missing something.
> I think my bottom line on this is reasonably pragmatic: the people who
> stole the information in question should be prosecuted to the full
> extent of the law (and note the different legal jurisdictions - the CRU
> hack is not quite a "type 1 felony" but it may well be the English
> equivalent) but now that the material is public it would seem to be
> necessary to deal with it openly.
>
> The only alternative seems to be to allow sensationalist interpretations
> to run amok - and, yes, I do classify much of the reaction to the wedge
> document as sensationalist as well.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.