On October 2nd last year a reader brought to my
attention the following comments about me in an exchange at DM-DISCUSS (a DMREview board) by one Dwight Seeley.
In response, I published a rebuttal, Silly Seeley at www.tdan.com.
On July 1st this year Seeley contacted the
publisher of TDAN complaining of defamation, malice and libel, and demanded a
retraction. He then contacted me and demanded an apology. He threatened to
“take steps” if we did not accommodate.
Because Seeley is not willing to take his stand publicly I
cannot, therefore, publish his side of the exchange that ensued. But I can
publish my response to the editor and to Seeley. Here is the former:
Based on Seeley's reasoning--which I criticized in my
article--and some feedback about him that I received from readers, my instinct
was to ignore his complaint. But because he contacted you [and demanded a
retraction], I decided to skim thru it and it only validated my initial
instinct.
Seeley complains that the article was malicious and intended to hurt. To
justify such an accusation he must demonstrate that my factual criticism
of his knowledge and reasoning is incorrect and, therefore, my characterization
of him is unjustified; and, furthermore, that I knew it to be incorrect.
But he does neither in his complaint. He "declares" it, without
addressing my criticism. Which is, of course, what I expected, because he
can't.
I find it pathetic and cowardly that initiated the defamatory tone publicly without any evidence or justification and now, that the tables are turned--and I, unlike him--have backed up my arguments with evidence and logic, he has the nerve to whine about it. Those who cannot stand the heat should not enter the kitchen.
It is, of course your prerogative, to publish his complaint, even though I see
no redeeming value to it. Should you do so, however, I will demand the right to
address his complaint and I very much doubt that he will be able to withstand
it any better than my original criticism.
Here is my response to Seeley:
I suggest you reread your original pronouncement that
triggered my reaction and figure out who defamed who first. It is of poor
character to make insulting public statements and then demand apologies and
retraction for the response.
Furthermore, you seem to belabor under an inability to distinguish between
"friends and enemies" and substantive arguments. You consider
anything negative as a mark of an enemy, and anything positive one of a friend.
That is nonsense. The issue is accuracy and grounding. I neither
dislike, nor like you, as I do not know you from Adam. I just analyzed your
arguments rationally and based on knowledge, to demonstrate that your
statements--which lack knowledge--relating to me were nonsense.
Unlike you, I stand behind my statements publicly and I never complain when
somebody criticizes me, even when he does not know what he's talking about and
does not back up his arguments, which is almost always the case. It has never
occurred to me to ask a publication to retract anything critical of me, no
matter how ludicrous or nasty--and it almost always is so--to threaten legally,
or to ask for apologies. I either respond to it, or ignore it. Retraction
demands and legal threats are the tool of the unable to respond, or the
insecure, or both.
If you think that what I wrote is untrue and defamatory, do what I did in
response to your comments: publish a response and take the risk of a rebuttal.
I could have, but did not make public input from readers that is not very
laudatory of you, and I assume you don't want to force my hand and make it
public. If you cannot or will not do this, then I strongly suggest next time
you think twice before making public statements.
Incidentally, you are contradicting yourself. In your
original comments you dismissed me as somebody who does not say anything of
importance and is not paid attention to. Now you are arguing the opposite, that
I am so important as to damage your reputation. Which is it?
The editor decided to pull the article temporarily and review
the whole matter. Even though this was supposed to take only a short time, I
expressed my disappointment as follows:
It is the responsibility of media to publish accurate information. Decisions
made on whether somebody gets hurt by that or not will result in only bland or
commercial content, which is exactly the reality of most media today.
May I point out that if my article is accurate, then you pulling it means that
Seeley can go around publishing negative statements about others without regard
as to whether he hurts anybody or not, but when somebody rebuts, he cries foul,
complains of being hurt, threatens legal action, and stifles the rebutters. And
I am not even talking about misleading readers.
Seeley claims he has a solid reputation. If so, how can it be damaged seriously
by one article by me, an author whose writings he dismisses as not worthy of
anyone's attention?
Your review should focus on whether the article contains any inaccuracy or
misleading information, and whether any statement I made about Seeley is
grounded or not. That's all.
It is unfortunate that it took such a long time to decide the
matter, but he finally did the right thing and reinstated it. Better late than
never, I guess.
Posted
09/19/03
[ABOUT]
[QUOTES]
[LINKS]
