Comments on: Still Nothing from Baquet — But We’ll Be Working on the Transcript http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/ Harangues that just make sense Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:47:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Mailto http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-387629 Mailto Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:15:25 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-387629 Who necessarily wants to hear anything that Baquet has to say? I mean Baquet’s response may have given Patterico a private chuckle, but Baquet could tell me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow—and I’d seek independent verification. I’ll go with Sharon’s comment above. http://www.webguncel.net Who necessarily wants to hear anything that Baquet has to say? I mean Baquet’s response may have given Patterico a private chuckle, but Baquet could tell me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow—and I’d seek independent verification. I’ll go with Sharon’s comment above.

http://www.webguncel.net

]]> By: Actual http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57999 Actual Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:56:43 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57999 I read somewhere that you can publish anything, even government secrets, if it's in the "public interest". I read somewhere that you can publish anything, even government secrets, if it’s in the “public interest”.

]]> By: JayCeezy http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57987 JayCeezy Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:36:13 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57987 If Pat does publish without Ba-Kay's express consent, it indicates: 1) Pat did not sincerely mean what he wrote earlier in his e-mail correspondence. 2) Pat changed his mind, when it was no longer convenient to hold his previosly stated opinion. 3) Pat doesn't care about any further relationship, correspondence, interaction, etc. with Ba-Kay. Patterico, you have shown yourself to have a lot of character and continue to do so now. Character is doing something, even when it is not immediately gratifying or easy. To publish would satisfy our curiousity (@#$!, I want to know what he said, too!) but that's all. You are the real deal. If Pat does publish without Ba-Kay’s express consent, it indicates:
1) Pat did not sincerely mean what he wrote earlier in his e-mail correspondence.
2) Pat changed his mind, when it was no longer convenient to hold his previosly stated opinion.
3) Pat doesn’t care about any further relationship, correspondence, interaction, etc. with Ba-Kay.

Patterico, you have shown yourself to have a lot of character and continue to do so now. Character is doing something, even when it is not immediately gratifying or easy. To publish would satisfy our curiousity (@#$!, I want to know what he said, too!) but that’s all. You are the real deal.

]]> By: TNugent http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57973 TNugent Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:40:02 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57973 You're showing your cards too early, and your magnanimity isn't earning any goodwill with Baquet. A retraction of your commitment not to publish seems in order. And don't commit to respect his wishes on the matter. He didn't give it to you with the understanding it wouldn't be published, so it's your information now, not his. Publish it if you think you should, or if you just want to. That's the way Baquet and his paper treated the rest of us when the issue was our security. He's in no position to expect anyone to respect his wishes regarding disclosure. You’re showing your cards too early, and your magnanimity isn’t earning any goodwill with Baquet. A retraction of your commitment not to publish seems in order. And don’t commit to respect his wishes on the matter. He didn’t give it to you with the understanding it wouldn’t be published, so it’s your information now, not his. Publish it if you think you should, or if you just want to. That’s the way Baquet and his paper treated the rest of us when the issue was our security. He’s in no position to expect anyone to respect his wishes regarding disclosure.

]]> By: Mike Myers http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57970 Mike Myers Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:10:08 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57970 Who necessarily wants to hear anything that Baquet has to say? I mean Baquet's response may have given Patterico a private chuckle, but Baquet could tell me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow---and I'd seek independent verification. I'll go with Sharon's comment above. Who necessarily wants to hear anything that Baquet has to say? I mean Baquet’s response may have given Patterico a private chuckle, but Baquet could tell me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow—and I’d seek independent verification. I’ll go with Sharon’s comment above.

]]> By: Don Surber http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57950 Don Surber Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:25:40 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57950 Why do you need permission? Publish it. First Amendment. Sheesh Why do you need permission? Publish it. First Amendment. Sheesh

]]> By: John Ekdahl http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57937 John Ekdahl Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:39:08 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57937 The first question should always be "Why should you not publish?" -The New York Times The first question should always be “Why should you not publish?”

-The New York Times

]]> By: DPierre http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57936 DPierre Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:29:35 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57936 Like the posts above: Is it possible to just e-mail Baquet and tell him, "I plan on publishing your response unless I hear from you"? Like the posts above:

Is it possible to just e-mail Baquet and tell him, “I plan on publishing your response unless I hear from you”?

]]> By: Pablo http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57929 Pablo Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:56:27 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57929 Really, if there was no notification that the communication was confidential, you're under absolutely no obligation, moral or otherwise, to refrain from quoting it. Really, if there was no notification that the communication was confidential, you’re under absolutely no obligation, moral or otherwise, to refrain from quoting it.

]]> By: Mike K http://www.patterico.com/2006/07/14/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57925 Mike K Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:12:27 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/07/14/4868/still-nothing-from-baquet-but-well-be-working-on-the-transcript/#comment-57925 I agree with Desert Rat. Send him a note stating that you will respect his wishes if HE E-MAILS YOU to request keeping the reason private. If no response, assume assent. Isn't that a principle in the law ? I agree with Desert Rat. Send him a note stating that you will respect his wishes if HE E-MAILS YOU to request keeping the reason private. If no response, assume assent. Isn’t that a principle in the law ?

]]>