Ben Holder: "Let me make one thing really clear. I did not post the RMA report online. Yes it is true that I got the report before any other blogger did. N&R got it, then WFMY got it, then WGHP, then I got it. After that it just gets really confusing.
"I will also say that I did share it with a few folks. However, I told the people I gave it to I did not want to see this posted online or published in any form."
I unfortunately can't go on the record as to who and how, but there's a problem with this statement:
"Yes it is true that I got the report before any other blogger did. N&R got it, then WFMY got it, then WGHP, then I got it. After that it just gets really confusing."
Unless Holder waited two weeks to tell us he got it, I know of at least one other news outlet and at least a few other area bloggers who had the report first - they just didn't announce it as they didn't intend to publish it or hand it out.
I'm not criticizing bloggers who handed out the report. That's how I got my copy. But I do think it's a little naive to hand the report out but be upset (or say you're upset) when it ends up online.
Posted by: Joe Killian | Oct 18, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Joe,
It is naive to not see how putting names up for the whole world to see can't cause someone to be hurt. Killed. Exposed.
"I unfortunately can't go on the record as to who and how....I know of at least one other news outlet and at least a few other area bloggers who had the report first - they just didn't announce it as they didn't intend to publish it or hand it out."
I have a very hard beleiving this is true. Especially the media part. What media outlet sits on the RMA report?
It also confuses the point of your comment. Are you trying to show the reader that my timeline is wrong and others had it first but were more responsible? Or are you just simply trying to say I should not be suprised it is online and that you have secrets about how others have it?
To have it and read it and publish your thoughts about it are totally different than just publishing it. publisihng it allows everyone to see every detail. The details that could get someone killed are not even worth mentioning if one is simply reporting about the Wray fray. Somewhere in the world there might be a person who has been dying to know who ratted them out. Now they can find out. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Posted by: benholder | Oct 18, 2006 at 12:41 PM
"It is naive to not see how putting names up for the whole world to see can't cause someone to be hurt. Killed. Exposed."
If the stakes are that high, why would you "share it with a few folks"?
Posted by: PotatoStew | Oct 18, 2006 at 12:53 PM
To have it and read it and publish your thoughts about it are totally different than just publishing it.
Posted by: benholder | Oct 18, 2006 at 01:54 PM
Ah... I thought by "share it with a few folks" you meant that you gave copies to a few people. Are you saying that you were only referring to your blog posts about it, and you didn't give a copy to anyone?
Posted by: PotatoStew | Oct 18, 2006 at 02:25 PM
This is what I was getting at. I didn't mean to insult Ben, but I did see it as a little naive to believe that helping a lot of bloggers get their hands on the RMA report wouldn't
A) Lead them to post it online themselves.
B) Lead them to give it to someone who would post it online.
I'm not saying that Ben or anyone else who copied and distributed the report is responsible for it ending up online - but that's what I would have predicted happening had I done the same thing. Call me a cynic.
Posted by: Joe Killian | Oct 18, 2006 at 03:59 PM
I also hope u see how naive it is to post it and not think someone could get hurt or exposed....you see that dont u?
Posted by: benholder | Oct 18, 2006 at 04:11 PM
Oh, yeah.
I definitely see that there are potentially risks to lives in posting it, which is what inspired my post about all of this over at my own site.
Posted by: Joe Killian | Oct 18, 2006 at 04:42 PM
"I also hope u see how naive it is to post it and not think someone could get hurt or exposed"
Worse than what the N&R did to Wray in the initial articles highlighting the negative aspects of the report concerning Wray, when he could not answer the allegations made against him?
Posted by: Bubba | Oct 18, 2006 at 05:15 PM
I just read the original comments again, and Ben says "I told the people I gave it to" which means that you actually did give the report to some folks. So, I'm still confused. If you believe that the stakes were so high that having the report posted could cause people to be hurt, exposed or even killed, why would you distribute the report to anyone? As Joe said, it seems a bit naive to think that it could be given to others without increasing the risk of it being published somewhere.
Posted by: PotatoStew | Oct 18, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Who ever tater stew is,
the people I gave it to did not publish it. The community had asked for it for a long time. I answered that request. I never said that it will not be posted. I just said I wouldnt do it and would not recommend posting it online.
Posted by: benholder | Oct 19, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Jeepers, Ben. Stew is the proprietor of Plead the First, a proud father, a first rate American and a cartoonist.
Posted by: Fec Stench | Oct 19, 2006 at 10:43 AM
"Jeepers?" Why did that make me laugh?
Posted by: Roch101 | Oct 19, 2006 at 10:56 AM