k folks, get out your popcorn....
The lovely Caryn responds:
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:48:29 -0800 (PST) [01/29/2007 06:48:29 AM CST]
From: caryn anscomb
To: Dan Smith , 'Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan'
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: RE: Dan's blog latest, re interview
I think who Dan decides to share his emails with is rather up to him, Kerry.
As he says - no one can be effectively excluded.
In fact, if all you stopped bickering and trying to out "IQ" each other and pooled your resources, I bet between you all, you'd have a pretty good and nearly complete picture on what is actually going on here. That would cause a few "insider" sweats I bet.
The only barrier that is really blocking progress is the over-inflated egos of the individuals who believe they have all of the answers.. you are your own worst enemies.
Dan Smith <dantsmith@comcast.net> wrote:
I gather that he is an interested party. I’m equal opportunity, when it comes to disclosure. No one can effectively be excluded from this game. Not from here on out..
Confused Bill response:
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:06:31 +0000 [01/29/2007 10:06:31 AM CST]
From: Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy
To: ">Caryn Anscomb" , Dan Smith
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: Re: Dan's blog latest, re interview
Part(s): Download All Attachments (in .zip file)
Be careful who you trust, Caryn.
If Dan was serious about no-one being effectively excluded, he¹d have
streamed his response to everyone he know, including all of Victor¹s list
and the moderators of all the other forums.
This is my reply on Kerry¹s behalf. If she wants to respond herself, I¹m
sure she will
Best, Bill
Dan's response (make note of the last sentence - hilarious)...
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:25:23 -0500 [01/29/2007 10:25:23 AM CST]
From: Dan Smith
To: 'Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy' , "'>Caryn Anscomb'"
Cc: (cc list removed)
Subject: RE: Dan's blog latest, re interview
Bill,
I look forward to doing an interview soon with you and Kerry, and with
whomever else is interested.
Everything I know of public utility is already on my blog, which goes back
almost a decade in its various incarnations.
Ryan D, deserves to be on this short list, if for no other reason that his
RU website now has a forum for discussing the BPW blog. More power to them.
http://www.realityuncovered.com/forum/v ... .php?t=757 At the same time that you are warning us away from the RU crowd, there are
plenty of others warning us away from Camelot. Isn't this becoming more
than a bit silly?
I feel forced to quote Mao, 'I don't care about the color of the cats, as
long as they can catch mice.'
My concern is to get the word out. It will fall on both barren and fertile
ground. Which is which, is not my concern.
Anything you would like to stream to Victor, be my guest, but let us not
become spammers.
Dan
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:53:59 -0800 (PST) [01/29/2007 10:53:59 AM CST]
From: caryn anscomb
To: Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy , Dan Smith
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: Re: Dan's blog latest, re interview
Yes, and I'm being advised of the same about you!
As I said - whom Dan, or any of us choose to share our emails with, is entirely up to us.
I trust very few - However, I have no axe to grind with any one individual, which is why I am going to say this:
I correspond with a great many people, on all sides of the divides. I try, when I can, to sit on the fence when it comes to what I consider to be mainly banal disputes - but I can tell you that watching from the fence has revealed an interesting pattern.
The most vocal and visible folk on these lists, and on the forums, are simply following the news and ingratiating themselves into the thick of it whenever and however they can..we all want to be part of the "action" if there is any part to be had, and we all want to be heard.
What some of you don't appear to see is that the continuing bickering amongst folk, who are in fact out generally out for the same ends, is playing straight into the hands of just a handful of people who want nothing more than the in-fights to continue. They find it amusing and the dust kicked up serves their purpose well.
Divide and concur rules apply.
Dan can speak for himself - but I know him well enough to inform you that he will talk to whoever will listen. His news, whether you agree with it or not, is meant for all, not a select few. Again, how he chooses to dish that out, with whom and when is his choice. As it's your choice to take it onboard, or not.
From Kit Green - read carefully...
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:18:01 -0500 [01/29/2007 11:18:01 AM CST]
From: "Green, Christopher"
To: caryn anscomb , Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy , Dan Smith
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: RE: Dan's blog latest, re interview
I would like to associate myself entirely with Caryn's views.
I also take note that many of us have in the past (he said with apology)
used strong language of either approbation of contempt toward others, or
their emergent ideas and conclusions in this Soap Opera, have changed
our minds often, can never get historically right with the record due to
the ad seriatim nature of the internet and our own lack of interest /
time to correct old emails, and loose objectivity in the process. And,
god-knows we send emails that have great history to people who have
little of the history, and hence we become our very own worst enemies by
taking our own words out of context, and spamming them.
To me, the only matter is that when one sends an email marked "Private"
it should remain so; it is not up to us to second-guess a personal
matter of ethics as to why we use the bcc when talking about a human
being we want to silently and personally do the courtesy of noticing our
words, and no one's business who/why/when we choose to trust.
All else: to whom we send, to whom we listen, to whom we notice is so
profoundly complex...the less said the better.
Jack:
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:49:12 -0800 [01/29/2007 12:49:12 PM CST]
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: "Green, Christopher"
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: Re: Dan's blog latest, re interview
Right. However I did not see any "private" marked on any of this, though I am not following it closely. I only last night realized that Ryguy was not Bill Ryan. Two Ryans, Two Schwartz's, Two .... Kit knows what I mean.
Doppelganger from parallel universe next door?
Bill's response to Caryn (and he completely missed Kit's point):
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:01:56 +0000 [01/29/2007 01:01:56 PM CST]
From: Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy
To: ">Caryn Anscomb" , Dan Smith
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: Re: Dan's blog latest, re interview
> Yes, and I¹m being advised of the same about you!
I don¹t doubt it but with what claimed justification?
Assuming this is addressed to me personally:
I don¹t read other people¹s e-mails (and wouldn¹t, even if given the
password by another person).
I keep confidences.
I don¹t copy personal e-mails that I have received to others. Private is
Private.. as Kit rightly states.
I don¹t withdraw my allegiance once given without very good reason.
I am who I say I am and my personal history is exactly as publicly stated.
I don¹t masquerade under aliases in any circumstances and have never done
so.
I have no agenda or purpose other than that clearly explained.
I do not feign friendship simply in order to gain information.
We at Camelot have never helped distribute a story or claim that we know to
be false.
I have sometimes withheld information that I have judged wise to do so.
If integrity is defined as one¹s beliefs, actions and words all being in
alignment, then I believe I qualify to say that I have integrity.
I could repeat all the above on record for Kerry, but she can speak for
herself if she chooses.
Most people on this list will also be able to check all those boxes. But not
everyone.
Of course, any one can communicate with whomever they choose. That¹s sacred
to me, too. But when a name is added to a list and then others Reply All in
haste, they may not be aware who they¹re communicating to. It¹s been another
person¹s decision for them in a sense. We should all be aware of who¹s on
the cc lists generated by others.
None of this is any criticism of Dan (or yourself). Kerry¹s question, which
Ryan Dube dismissed as arrogant, was to draw attention to the fact that he
had been added to the list. Moderators of no other forums were. Dan¹s reply
was clear, fair and adequate. My own personal position is that as per my
earlier we should all careful of who we trust. There are reasons for
saying that. Forewarned is forearmed.
Best, Bill
And Caryn is forced to explain the plot to Bill:
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:38:38 -0800 (PST) [01/29/2007 01:38:38 PM CST]
From: caryn anscomb
To: Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy , Dan Smith
Cc: (removed cc list)
Subject: Re: Dan's blog latest, re interview
With all due respect, I'm not interested in any of those points.
As to your advice - you are, with the best intentions I'm sure, trying to teach granny to suck eggs. We've all been in this game long enough to know the score, Bill - some of us a lot longer than you.
At this juncture open channels of communication are a must - if we are to get anywhere. Everyone here has a right to be heard - that's all I'm promoting at this point. If this starts to degenerate into a he said she said diatribe all's lost-simple as that.
