tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post3376089235800654477..comments2024-03-11T09:29:31.793-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: FiveThirtyEight Apologizes On Behalf Of Controversial Climate Science WriterDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-54690496590541441222014-03-28T17:41:45.261-07:002014-03-28T17:41:45.261-07:00Melcher: You have no idea what email Mann received...Melcher: You have no idea what email Mann received, do you?<br /><br />Do you? <br /><br />Funny how you're so able to judge it, without having seen it.<br /><br />PS: You are on very thin ground here. Your comments are very weak, and won't be published without supporting evidence. Your final warning. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-62501883055918990292014-03-28T17:22:00.124-07:002014-03-28T17:22:00.124-07:00"Mann declined to make Pielke's email pub..."Mann declined to make Pielke's email public,"<br /><br />Which is, if nothing else, consistent. <br /><br />... " but told HuffPost that he [Mann] viewed it as a 'thinly veiled' threat of legal action. "<br /><br />And Mann, if anyone, has the experience to view such things clearly, however veiled. <br /><br />The word THREAT, however, has certain legalistic technical meanings well established in case law. Much like, just for instance, FRAUD. Were a malicious person attempting to bait a victim into over-reaching, that person might portray the (perhaps what a jury might agree to describe as) "complaint" as a (what the jury might agree is a distortion) "thret".<br /><br />Were millions of dollars worth of legal aid available to both sides to litigate such matters, they might eventually be resolved. As is, we all will be left to wonder. J Melcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14349242761775214765noreply@blogger.com