RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC
Rob Hunt
this board and I had my facts wrong.
The person involved in that deal with the FCT-150 was a Dave Barnett
(a part-time cop no less) out of Philadelphia, not Dave Barrett of
High Point Scientific.
I know a few things about Dave Barrett. He works hard, loves the sky,
and is enthusiastic about sharing what he knows. I spoke with him
today and he was quite gracious despite my rude and incorrect
accusations. He is a true gentleman and while this apology can't undo
the ugliness that proceeded it - it's a start.
Likewise - any insinuations about the integrity of the folks at High
Point Scientific were way off base. Clearly they would not employ Mr.
Barrett if he weren't trustworthy. They deserve better than to be
blindsided by an anonymous post that gets its facts wrong.
Please understand that my motivations were to correct a very serious
wrong and continuing hardship that is hurting a good friend.
Rob Hunt
Jan Owen
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.
People tend to remember things like that...
--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Rob Hunt" <turt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c0e5ae5.0406...@posting.google.com...
Jon Isaacs
>that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
>discover you shot the wrong person.
>
>People tend to remember things like that...
Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered his
mistake but he do the right thing here.
At least for that he deserves congratulations....
jon
lightshow
I have been following this thread all day Jon, and I do applaud your
reasoning. It's my intention to do do business with High Point and Dave
Barrett: That may ease "some" pain, although probably, not mine. :-)
It seems this group could be of some assistance to the "injured" party
though? Nine BIG is a lot of bucks and if the instrument is -indeed-
listed for sale on a BB, it seems, with the possible Legal ramifications
involved, the BB might want to review the listing until this situation
can be resolved to everyones satisfaction.
jon (another)
lal_truckee
>>One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
>>that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
>>discover you shot the wrong person.
>>
>>People tend to remember things like that...
>
>
> Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
> right his wrong.
He can also request Google not archive the original post - Google has a
mechanism in place to retroactively remove posts, I believe. The post
then wouldn't show up in quite so many searches. Many people apparently
believe usenet posts are ephemeral; they are not, and Google isn't the
only archive - posts are spread all over the world and therefore
inevitably stored in numerous backup systems.
You will note that the original poster "corrected" his mistake by naming
a second person with a supposed occupation; who as far as we know is
also completely innocent. This poster gets no grace from me - he clearly
didn't learn from his stupidity, instead repeating it, as if his
behavior is OK if he just had the right name to publically slander.
If he has a problem with someone, let him take it up with the
individual; if he then gets no relief, the local police and court system
are set up to handle just such cases, including small claims court.
Jan Owen
--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
news:20040617162611...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Had it been a mere slip of the tongue, I would entirely agree.
But it appears as if he selected SAA for his forum with deliberation, and
did at least SOME basic research into the individual; enough to determine
his place of business. Then he elected to use inflammatory rhetoric and
innuendo, with the apparent intent to deliver the greatest impact
possible, including potentially damaging the company where his victim
works, all without determining, without doubt, if it WAS the right
person... Then he delivered his attack, using an alias.
That sure SEEMS like a deliberate, premeditated attack. Not a minor
honest, or careless, mistake. There's considerable difference between
accidentally stepping on someone's toe, and making, lighting, and throwing
a Molotov cocktail at them, while wearing a mask...
I agree that he has done as much as he knows how to make amends.
It isn't for me to decide whether he should be forgiven. You and I can
forgive him in our own contexts, though I don't think our forgiveness is
the central issue here. You're entitled to think this is none of my
business, although all of SAA, including us, was certainly his intended
audience.
My real point here is, and has been, not directly about chastising him,
but to emphasize to everyone that when you do something like this, being
sorry can't always undo what has been done, even when you're quite
sincere.
Jon Isaacs
>but to emphasize to everyone that when you do something like this, being
>sorry can't always undo what has been done, even when you're quite sincere.
No doubt about it. Best to take a long hard look before you leap.
Jon
Paul Lawler
> this board and I had my facts wrong.
>
> wrong and continuing hardship that is hurting a good friend.
The proper remedy to right this alleged wrong is the court system, not an
Internet newsgroup. You have now accused a second Dave Barrett, and you may
be equally wrong about him. If perchance, you are not wrong, then I am
fairly confident the judicial/law enforcement system will also be able to
find him without our help.
lightshow
>
> The proper remedy to right this alleged wrong is the court system, not an
> Internet newsgroup. You have now accused a second Dave Barrett, and you may
> be equally wrong about him. If perchance, you are not wrong, then I am
> fairly confident the judicial/law enforcement system will also be able to
> find him without our help.
>
>
It seems that there may be a clock running here (Limitation Statutes).
Time may be of the essence.:-)
jon
Rob Hunt
"He can also request Google not archive the original post"
Did it, but as you can see, it's not immediate or complete.
Everyone else said:
"You will note that the original poster "corrected" his mistake
by naming a second person with a supposed occupation; who as far
as we know is also completely innocent. This poster gets no grace
from me - he clearly didn't learn from his stupidity, instead
repeating it."
"If he has a problem with someone, let him take it up with the
individual; if he then gets no relief, the local police and court
system are set up to handle just such cases, including small
claims court."
"The proper remedy to right this alleged wrong is the court
system, not an Internet newsgroup. You have now accused a
second Dave Barrett [Actually Dave BarNETT], and you may be
equally wrong about him. If perchance, you are not wrong, then
I am fairly confident the judicial/law enforcement system will
also be able to find him without our help."
It's nice to see that you're all "confident the judicial system can
help." Sadly, that hasn't been the case. The FBI spoke with this
gentlemen and then suggested a lawsuit. That's just great. You can
win a judgement against someone who has wronged you fairly easily, but
collecting any money is another matter entirely. My friend is not
seeking a moral victory here. That isn't going to help him. You should
understand that NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS represents a significant chunk
of a person's ANNUAL INCOME. This kind of hardship is simply not
acceptable. Put yourself in HIS situation for a moment.
My actions have been admittedly extreme but I believe that we are
closer to a resolution of this situation than we were yesterday.
Meanwhile, friends and customers LEAPT to the defense of Dave Barrett
and I'm grateful to have been straightened out about him.
This doesn't change the facts about one "Dave Barnett" from the Philly
area. We have the emails that detail the transaction and later
settlement. The courts are simply unwilling to do what it takes to
ensure those who have been wronged ever collect. All we are left with
is the pressure that communities can apply to their own to see that
people do the right thing. Somebody in THIS community would certainly
know a person who was into the hobby to the extent that he had a rig
such as that. All I ask is that someone who knows him forward this
message to him. How else can we get through to him? Where is his
shame? Someone asked Dave Barrett what happened and he explained
himself in an instant. Let someone ask Dave Barnett and let's hear it
from him. Is he at some star party playing with the latest Mewlon or
riding around on a Harley?
I will be able to sleep tonight despite the havoc I have unleashed. I
have expained myself and apologized in person and in public to Dave
Barrett and Bob Dugan of High Point Scientific. I'd be happy to learn
from this other person, Dave BarNETT, that there had been some
misunderstanding, that a check had been in the mail somehow. I'd get
right back up here, bigger fool than ever, and eat my crazy words.
Just let the process play out and we'll see.
Rob Hunt
(Sorry I got it wrong the first time, but still convinced that peer
pressure may be our only hope to correct what I REPEAT is a very
serious hardship.)
Jon Isaacs
>This doesn't change the facts about one "Dave Barnett" from the Philly
>area.
Some things to consider:
1. You made a very serious mistake by mistakenly naming someone and falsely
accusing them of fraud. Were that someone vindictive, that $9000 you are
trying to recover could be peanuts compared to the amount it would cost you to
defend yourself against a lawsuit.
2. You have repeated the same pattern of using the internet to accuse someone
of fraud. You might be right or you might be wrong but this is not a forum to
resolve such issues. After your first blunder I have no way of knowing if this
Mr. Dave in Philly exists or not and personally I don't care.
3. While it was nice to apologize, there is a lesson here that, given the
magnitude of your blunder (and it was big to say the least), should be
immediately obvious to you and hopefully should keep you from every making such
a post again.
But that does not seem to be the case.
Bottomline:
A retraction and apology should contain no excuses, no justification for your
error, it should only focus on the mistake that you make, your attempts to
rectify it and a sincere effort to never make that same mistake again.
Jon Isaacs
Rod Mollise
>It was me who posted the note about Dave Barrett and High Point to
>this board and I had my facts wrong.
JESUS, Rob!
I'm glad you bit the bullet and contacted him by phone. Unfortunately, all many
folks will remember of this incident months from now is your accusation and
will take their business eleswhere. That's why we all need to be careful about
running off half-cocked and posting stuff on the 'net that should have been
thought through a wee bit more. Your post will be there in the archives from
now on.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
Rod Mollise
>My actions have been admittedly extreme but I believe that we are
>closer to a resolution of this situation than we were yesterday.
Hi Rob:
Yeah, at the expense of an honest bystander. Your finding the culprit for your
friend (why isn't he working this himself?) won't do much to put the innocent
Dave Barett's reputation back together. I hope you realize the enormity of what
you've done.
I don't mean to pillory in public again, I just find questions of honor like
this very important, and hope you do too. I think, frankly, you should do a
little more thinking about this incident and lose a bit more sleep.
Rob Hunt
Bite off a piece of my dork why don't you?
Let anybody who wants to sue me for libel go right ahead. If you
think MY transgression was bigger than the outright theft of 9 grand
then you're simply off your frigging rocker.
You can take your high moral tone and cram it in your bum!
Rob Hunt
Jon Isaacs
>
>Bite off a piece of my dork why don't you?
>
>Let anybody who wants to sue me for libel go right ahead. If you
>think MY transgression was bigger than the outright theft of 9 grand
>then you're simply off your frigging rocker.
>
>You can take your high moral tone and cram it in your bum!
>
>Rob Hunt
The point is not a question of judging magnitudes of transgressions, rather
that owning up to one's own transgressions is the first order of business.
You crudity and rudeness does not lend credence to anything you might say....
You ought to be counting your lucky stars that High Point Scientific was nice
about your screw up.
Jon
Richard
> It was me who posted the note about Dave Barrett and High Point to
> this board and I had my facts wrong.
>
> The person involved in that deal with the FCT-150 was a Dave Barnett
> (a part-time cop no less) out of Philadelphia, not Dave Barrett of
> High Point Scientific.
>
they must pay part time cops pretty well...
Paul Lawler
> Hi Jon -
>
> Bite off a piece of my dork why don't you?
>
> Let anybody who wants to sue me for libel go right ahead. If you
> think MY transgression was bigger than the outright theft of 9 grand
> then you're simply off your frigging rocker.
>
> You can take your high moral tone and cram it in your bum!
There Jon... now you can clearly see just how remorseful Mr. Hunt is!
Jon Isaacs
>
>There Jon... now you can clearly see just how remorseful Mr. Hunt is!
Yep. One thing about Mr. Hunt is that he has not made much of a case for
avoiding Mr. Barnett of Philadelphia but he certainly has made it clear that he
himself is someone we all ought to steer clear of...
jon
Mike Ruskai
>I hope you realize the enormity of what
Sorry to nitpick (well, not really), but every now and then, this one bugs
me so much I have to comment.
Enormity means depraved abnormality. It is not a synonym for
enormousness, despite their (obvious) common etymological roots.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Paul Lawler
news:gunaalqrneguyvaxa...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On 18 Jun 2004 13:03:14 GMT, Rod Mollise wrote:
>
> >I hope you realize the enormity of what
>
> Sorry to nitpick (well, not really), but every now and then, this one bugs
> me so much I have to comment.
>
> Enormity means depraved abnormality. It is not a synonym for
> enormousness, despite their (obvious) common etymological roots.
Dunno... my dictionary says:
1. The quality of passing all moral bounds; excessive wickedness or
outrageousness.
2. A monstrous offense or evil; an outrage.
I would posit that even though engaging in a bit of hyperbole, Rod was using
definition 2.
Jan Owen
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
news:31PAc.9840$Wr....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think Rod was right on the money...
Rod Mollise
Hi Mike:
Sorry to nitpick right back, old buddy ;-)
Websters says (I'm too lazy to find a magnifying glass and look it up in my two
volume OED):
"Enormity, quality of being enormous; great wickedness; atrocity."
The first definition is much more common in American-English usage. That is, it
_is_ a synonym for "enormousness." Your definition is correct, of course, if
less common.
Actually, in this case, both definitions are applicable.
Yes, I was an English major in an earlier life. ;-)
Rod Mollise
>I think Rod was right on the money...
>
Hi Jan:
I hate to think so... I'm hoping that the person in question is genuinely
sorry, and that he's just displaying some understandable definsiveness after
being called on the carpet, so to speak.
Rod Mollise
>I think Rod was right on the money...
>
BTW, guys, depending on the source you use, the "immense/huge" definition of
the word may not be first. Meriam Webster, which I just looked at, places it
third behind "depraved," etc. The Webster I checked first was the one in the
single volume with Roget's. Maybe _Irving_ Webster. ;-)
RJD
> It was me who posted the note about Dave Barrett and High Point to
> this board and I had my facts wrong.
After a few very strange phone calls and hearing from one of our customers
about the original post we did receive a call from Mr. Robert Hunt. He
apologized to Dave Barrett and myself. I will have to admit that Dave was
certainly more gracious accepting his apology than I was. Mr. Hunt has
retracted his statement and has done the best he can to correct his mistake.
It would probably be best to let this thread die to minimize the appearance
of this header during searches. I can only hope when one does come across
this thread, they read the entire text to get "the rest of the story".
We sincerely hope his friend will be able to recover the funds he has lost.
With a close community such as this, it is a shame his friend is even in
this situation. While not condoning Mr. Hunt's actions or methods we can
understand his desire to help a friend.
Thank You,
Robert J. Dugan Sr.
President, High Point Scientific, Inc.
Mike Ruskai
>
>
>>Enormity means depraved abnormality.
>
>Hi Mike:
>
>Sorry to nitpick right back, old buddy ;-)
>
>Websters says (I'm too lazy to find a magnifying glass and look it up in my two
>volume OED):
>
>"Enormity, quality of being enormous; great wickedness; atrocity."
>
>The first definition is much more common in American-English usage. That is, it
>_is_ a synonym for "enormousness." Your definition is correct, of course, if
>less common.
>
>Actually, in this case, both definitions are applicable.
>
>Yes, I was an English major in an earlier life. ;-)
Some dictionaries take the position of setting usage. Some take the
position of reflecting usage. OED is more towards the former, and Webster
far past the end of the latter.
It's really only recently that writers and reporters have started using
enormity to mean enormousness. Websters is merely reflecting that change.
I have an unabridged 1983 revision Websters which lists large size as
definition #3, qualifying it as rare.
Check this out for a small discussion about the recent incorrect usage of
enormity (though I agree that you're particular usage here easily
qualifies for the standard definition <g>):
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enormity
My other pet language peeve is moot. Moot means arguable. People say an
issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
arguing about anymore.
I don't object words acquiring new meanings over time, but I think it's
silly to change them sharply rather than gradually (or completely reverse
the meaning, as with moot).
Brian Tung
> Some dictionaries take the position of setting usage. Some take the
> position of reflecting usage. OED is more towards the former, and Webster
> far past the end of the latter.
I don't think so. The OED is explicitly a descriptivist dictionary. I
believe they state that in one of their extensive forewords.
> It's really only recently that writers and reporters have started using
> enormity to mean enormousness. Websters is merely reflecting that change.
> I have an unabridged 1983 revision Websters which lists large size as
> definition #3, qualifying it as rare.
I agree that it is rare. What's more, most of the time, I get the vague
impression that the speaker or writer is unaware that it has another
definition. I would consider that to be uninformed usage.
> Check this out for a small discussion about the recent incorrect usage of
> enormity (though I agree that you're particular usage here easily
> qualifies for the standard definition <g>):
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enormity
>
> My other pet language peeve is moot. Moot means arguable. People say an
> issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
> arguing about anymore.
There was an intermediate sense--that an issue was worth debating, but
the debate was academic; it didn't have any real relevance anymore.
For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with either use of the word
"moot"; it's not a pet peeve for me at all. (But I'm not consistent. I
don't like when people use "flaunt" as though they meant "flout.")
> I don't object words acquiring new meanings over time, but I think it's
> silly to change them sharply rather than gradually (or completely reverse
> the meaning, as with moot).
That either happens or it doesn't. I object to unclear usage more than
this.
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
Paul Lawler
news:gunaalqrneguyvaxa...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
> arguing about anymore.
>
> I don't object words acquiring new meanings over time, but I think it's
> silly to change them sharply rather than gradually (or completely reverse
> the meaning, as with moot).
I would like to add "notoriety" to your list. By definition, notoriety is
negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.
Rod Mollise
>Check this out for a small discussion about the recent incorrect usage of
>enormity (though I agree that you're particular usage here easily
>qualifies for the standard definition <g>):
Hi Mike;
I have my pet peeves too...but...just keep telling yourself that English is a
living language. Its incredible strength is the way it "steals" words from
other languages and mutates the spellings and usages of the words it already
has. It may be infuriating, but it's a good thing. ;-)
Chris.B
> "Mike Ruskai" <spamten....@begonedynnaht.net> wrote in message
> news:gunaalqrneguyvaxa...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > My other pet language peeve is moot. Moot means arguable. People say an
> > issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
> > arguing about anymore.
>
> negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.
"Notoriety" is used only for <negative> fame. Fame for all the wrong
reasons. There lies the difference in comparison to plain "fame".
But it's a moot point. ;-)
Chris.B.Pedant IV
Paul Lawler
news:gunaalqrneguyvaxa...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
> arguing about anymore.
>
> I don't object words acquiring new meanings over time, but I think it's
> silly to change them sharply rather than gradually (or completely reverse
> the meaning, as with moot).
According to my dictionary there are two definitions for "moot" as an
adjective. And they do have reverse meanings.
moot (adj.)
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2. Law.
a. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or
settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.