Re: "No Comment" and related matters

[Dimiter Popoff <tgi@cit.bg>]

My former postings subject (two smiles) is an error, the correct

subject is here. Sorry for the error, I was preparing a message

with that subject and was (still am) hesitating if to post it

to the list.  I include below the message I posted with the wrong subject.

Apologies the error once again.



Dimiter



> Ruth,

> 

> the archives are indeed Google (and whatever) searchable so if someone

> runs a search with your name he/she will locate you. Try that on

> my name and you'll see to what archived list I have posted. (Luckily

> an article mentioning someone with the same name like mine in some sort of

> criminal context is no longer to be found - or at least not close

> to the top of the list...).

> 

>  So what? I cannot remember a posting of yours one could be

> ashamed of. If someone is willing to misquote you he/she will find

> a source - or make one up. I don't know if you have really reasons

> to be very concerned about it - you are not an elected politician,

> but then you may be dependent on one of them... However, if someone is

> really interested in what you have said or implied he would locate

> the same resources and see for himself.

>  My bottom line is that it would be a pity if you begin to post less

> frequently to the list because of some political implications this could

> have, and I hope this will not be necessary so the list can carry on as usual.

> 

> Dimiter

> 

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> Dimiter Popoff

> Transgalactic Instruments, Gourko Str. 25 b, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

> http://transgalactic.freeyellow.com

> 

> > To: RADSAFE@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

> > From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

> > Subject: Re: "No Comment" and related matters

> > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:32:50 EST

> >

> > I would like to alert RADSAFERs to a potential problem in the use of RADSAFE:

> > 

> > A day or so ago, an article appeared on a media web page which is a direct 

> > and inaccurate personal attack on me and my position on ACNW.  The article 

> > objects to my appointment, but the only cited  evidence for the article's 

> > contention consists of a few out-of-context quotes from the RADSAFE archive (the most 

> > recent quote is from a post of about 18 months ago).  Interestingly, none of 

> > the quotes say or imply what is claimed, and one was, as best I recall, in an 

> > unrelated context.  

> > 

> > In my opinion this use of RADSAFE archives destroys the sense of mutual trust 

> > that now exists on RADSAFE and limits the freedom that RADSAFERs may feel to 

> > express their unfettered opinions.  I certainly never expected to see my posts 

> > used in this fashion.   I am not a public figure, my appointment to ACNW is 

> > non-political, and requires no Senate confirmation and, for that matter, has no 

> > particular power.  It is a professional reward, not a political one. 

> > 

> > The following related anecdote adds to our thread about "no comment." The 

> > article states:

> > 

> > "Messages left at the... office, at her [Weiner's} Sandia office and at her 

> > home were not returned.  An attempt to reach her by email was not successful."

> > 

> > The facts  and timeline for this "messages not returned" scenario are 

> > actually as follows:

> > 

> > I was on travel.  A message (that I didn't check until much later) was left 

> > on my Sandia phone at 3:15 PM EST.  I received a written telephone message from 

> > the office where I was working a few minutes later.  Around 3:30 PM EST I 

> > received an email which said nothing about a response being time critical, and 

> > simply stated a wish to "... discuss Yucca Mountain." I did not have time to 

> > respond to either  the telephone message or email because I had to leave for the 

> > airport at 4 PM, and nothing about any message indicated urgency.

> > 

> > My husband was called at my home (a listed number) between 3:15 and 3:30 PM 

> > EST and DID return the call, and responded to questions.  His responses were 

> > the same information that is on the NRC/ACNW website.  The reporter never 

> > indicated that he was in a hurry to contact me.

> > 

> > The time of the article's appearance suggests that the article had already 

> > been written when my husband and I were contacted. I believe that  the reporter 

> > made a cursory pro forma attempt to get a response, and couched the attempt in 

> > such a way that I probably wouldn't respond immediately.  There was no time 

> > criticality about the article itself, and had a response really been desired, 

> > the reporter could certainly have waited a day or two.  It was a setup.  The 

> > reporter merely wished to stir up controversy.   

> > 

> > Moral: even when one doesn't respond because there is no time, no occasion, 

> > and no indication of the need for immediate response, the lack of response can 

> > be made to look sinister.  How often has this happened?  A spurious  

> > accusation is made. The accused is given no reasonable time to respond.  The 

> > non-response is made to look like deliberate evasion.  Pretty much a case of "damned if 

> > you do, damned if you don't."

> > 

> > And by the way, for those of you who are going to bring up the question of 

> > "how to talk to the press," this reporter never talked to me at all.

> > 

> > Ruth

> > 

> > 

> > Ruth F. Weiner

> > ruthweiner@aol.com           

> >

> >

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/