Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA09483; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:43:48 -0700 Return-Path: <shred@netcom.com-DeleteThis> Received: from netcom12.netcom.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.36.108.11 $/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA030511492; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:44:52 -0700 Received: by netcom12.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id QAA13412; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:37:30 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:37:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Edward W. Scott" <shred@netcom.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: fake news and the SFBA newsletter To: kjw@merkle.baaqmd.gov-DeleteThis Cc: Multiple recipients of list <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> In-Reply-To: <9507238092.AA809208738@merkle.baaqmd.gov-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9508231608.A12428-0100000@netcom12> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Us uninvolved SFBA members in net.land really appeciate your
contributions to the organization. I think Luigi's original message
about copyright and all that was also intended (as was the doofus part)
to be humorous. Jay's attitude that the joke was perpetuated in the SFBA
newsletter is the best one. My posts were merely in response to those
criticizing Luigi for perpetrating the hoax in the first place, and if
those people are really pissed off, they should blame those who don't
check their sources and publish something as if true. However, I don't
think anyone should be mad in the first place.
Thanks again for the hard work, but my posts were merely defending Luigi,
and not intended as any criticism of SFBA.
Sorry about the Gorge. My last visit yielded a 4.0/4.5 day and a 3.5/4.0
day. Good luck next time.
-shrEd
Ed Scott
shred@netcom.com-DeleteThis
On Wed, 23 Aug 1995 kjw@merkle.baaqmd.gov-DeleteThis wrote:
>
> Okay, Okay, OKAY!!!
>
> I regret re-opening an issue that is just beginning to die down.
>
> I am the doofi that submitted the infamous "Salt Ponds" article for
> inclusion in the SFBA Newsletter. It was an honest mistake.
>
> I had just returned from Portland (skunked 3, wind 1) when a friend
> informed me of all the dialogue. I admit I did loose alittle sleep
> over my mistake. I am neither a publisher nor a journalist. I is an
> Enginerd & boardhead. I know nothing of journalistic integrity, but
> am learning fast.
>
> Although I thought the contents of the article highly unlikely
> to happen, I submitted the article in an effort to make the SFBA
> newsletter a little more interesting. We, the SFBA core group, have
> been criticized for being too bureaucratic & dry (No fun). We are not
> a terribly creative group. We tend to be politicos that are most
> concerned about access. We do the minimum necessary to get by and
> still be able to get some sailing in. That is why we have solicited
> Mike Godsey articles and will soon be printing Bob Galvan's "Tuba
> Report" dated 8/8/95. (yes I did get his permission, the resulting
> delay will make it appear in the next newsletter.) In the past we
> have gotten positive feedback on self-rescues we printed from the
> Internet. I did not get permission from the authors but I did leave
> the names out to protect the innocent.
>
> I do not think an elaborate apology is necessary, I plan to submit the
> following for the next newsletter:
>
> Correction: The article "Salt Ponds Convert to Sailing Sites" in
> the last newsletter was a fictional story disguised as a real
> article. The article should have been identified as fictional.
> We apologize for any confusion the omission may have caused.
>
> With Luigi Semenzato's permission, I will submit "Salt Pond
> Windsurfing Deal Falls Through" for the next newsletter & indicate it
> as a fictional story. All the bickering aside, I think we can still
> make is a funny story for the rest of the membership.
>
>
> A Final Note:
>
> The SFBA is not some Omnipotent Entity that exists by its own will.
> It is made up a small group of boardheads, that for one reason or
> another, feel the need to help support & improve the sport they all
> enjoy so much. That is why, in the newsletter, we are attempting to
> make them known. We will be profiling the board of directors over the
> next several issues & I hope to get them all homepages on the net.
>
> The SFBA is what WE make it. If you want to contribute, you are very
> welcome. Whether it is $10 a year, an article (factual, or
> fictional) for the newsletter, or organizing a beach cleanup,
>
> YOU are welcome.
>
> We need more involvement not less. So please don't trash the
> organization for something a single DOOFI might do.
>
> Kelly Wee
> Gul.li.ble (gul'e-ble), adj. [gull, v.+ible], easily cheated or
> tricked;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: fake news and the SFBA newsletter
> Author: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis at Internet
> Date: 8/20/95 12:32 PM
>
>
> OK folks,
>
> I still have a faint hope that this is an elaborate and quite
> effective joke at my expenses.
>
> My copy of the SFBA newsletter, which I got yesterday, contains
> a front-page article titled `Salt Ponds Convert to Sailing Sites.'
> The article is a fake. I wrote it on 7/1 and sent it to this
> mailing list. To give it a modicum of credibility, I pretended
> it came from a respectable newspaper (the San Jose Mercury News),
> which I don't even read.
>
> If nobody else has seen this in their newsletter, then I have to
> bow to a truly splendid joke. However, I doubt I am worthy of
> so much attention, not to mention work. If it was indeed sent
> to everybody, then I am very sorry.
>
> In the latter case, I can suggest two courses of action to the SFBA:
>
> 1. slithering apologies. Here's a suggestion for the wording:
>
> `We are sorry. The article `Salt Ponds etc.' in our August
> newsletter was not published in the SJMN, as stated, but it
> was a product of the fertile imagination of Luigi Semenzato.
> We admit we are complete doofuses for reprinting an article
> without first checking its source, and we apologize to all
> our members, and in particular to Luigi Semenzato for using
> his copyrighted material without permission.'
>
> 2. cover up. Here's a follow-up article which will put the
> issue to rest.
>
> >From the Union City Gazette, 8/20/1995
>
> Salt Pond Windsurfing Deal Falls Through
>
> Pacific Salt Company's plans for creating a windsurfing mecca at the
> mineral evaporation ponds in Union City suffered a major blow today,
> as Larry Falk, a researcher at the University of Santa Clara,
> published a technical report declaring the ponds `environmentally
> unsuitable for high-speed sailing activities.' Falk produced the
> report after witnessing Jerome LaBlatte's attempt to break the world
> sailing speed record at the site. LaBlatte sailed into a landing
> flock of egrets, causing havoc and panic among them. Because of the
> stress, the flock apparently moved out of the ponds before they could
> feed properly. In a possibly related development, several Napa Valley
> wineries have reported to local authorities that a large number of
> egrets are eating their grapes.
>
> Martin Fisher of the Pacific Salt Company stated he is `surprised and
> disappointed by the finding, especially considering we had financed
> Falk's research. Scientists in such positions should be a bit more
> sensible about their results.'
>
> Lablatte was also disappointed, but admitted that `it wasn't going to
> work anyhow. We windsurfers spend enough time as it is rigging and
> unrigging and fixing and cleaning. It certainly doesn't help if you
> have to spend an extra hour removing egret guano from your sail.'
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:29:59 PST