I'm posting here a PM that I sent early today to SI Admin Dave. I sent it in response to a PM from him notifying me that a request from a copyright holder required him to delete a certain post of mine.
Because I know it's always a good idea for an administrator not to turn quiet little issues into big ones, and because it never entered my mind that anything other than a copyright complaint motivated the deletion, I sent the following PM to SI Dave:
Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:45 AM ET
To: SI Admin (Dave) (who wrote)
From: E
Thanks. I guess the Chronicle is doing spot checks or something. Though the link is from the WSJ online, a mystery.
Anyway: in case it matters and you should know and delete it, I did post that article twice. Here's the second posting, fyi:
Message 19879532
Reply | Delete | File
Clearly, if Dave had deleted the first because he wanted to suppress its content, he'd have deleted the second, too, once it was called to his attention.
But he didn't.
Meaning that the first was deleted because he felt he had to, to do his job, and the second wasn't, because he didn't feel he had to, to do his job -- that one hadn't been complained about by the copyright holder.
My interest was merely to cooperate in not getting SI in trouble on this issue, since informality about copyrighting violations is pretty much the engine that runs most of the interesting conversations on SI. |
