octavian said: So now we have a denial by James.
I don't know where James posts, but this is what Honey said that James said:
"Hi Honey - I asked specifically what they believed I was sharing online that they felt was not fair use and the person I talked to either would not or could not tell me what my "offense" was other than saying it had come to their attention that I was indeed sharing info about the newsletter online. [emphasis added]
The rest of the post is honey's post #1429 here on SI, lest anyone think it's been excerpted improperly.
Apparently James didn't get a specific answer from whomever he talked to, but the organization told him what they considered the reason to be. I don't see him denying that he posted from the Marketimer. Did he deny it somewhere else? If he denied posting from the Marketimer, I haven't seen it, but I've only seen what's here. I suspect that whether whatever the "fair use" description is may be a difference of opinion between Brinker and James.
a) Was brinker justified in cancelling James's subscription simply because he had been bashing him?
I suspect that will be a continuing difference of opinion. But we don't know if, or exactly what he posted from the Marketimer, IF he did, do we?
b) Why in the world would someone like James WANT to subscribe to Brinker's newsletter. That would be kind of like ME subscribing to kirk's newsletter. In my case, it ain't gonna happen!
Very good question indeed. James admits that not only did he post critical and personal remarks, but that he had a less than flattering habit of pointing out how what Bob said in his newsletter was sufficiently vague that he could and likely would latter [sic] spin it so it would appear he was more prescient than in truth he was. Bob - IMHO- is a master of doublespeak. [emphasis added]
Good question...what are the motives for subscribing to a newsletter written by someone whom one believes to be less than truthful--a "master of doublespeak", someone he seems to disrespect to a great extent? But then, I guess James doesn't need to explain his motives, it's a free country. He may subscribe to whatever he wishes for whatever reason.
And according to Kirk, Brinker is entitled to cancel that subscription for his own reasons, whatever they are. Doesn't matter what any of us think about it.
That doesn't mean we can't/won't question it to our hearts' content. :) |
