[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'139532\' date=\'Dec 4 2006, 03:08 PM\']
Well, except that he had more than the headline to work with. He admitted that he read the story and knew that other shows were included, but chose not to mention their existence.
He posted a link to the BBC story and as far as I'm concerned that's sufficient. To take a minor error of omission and persecute the guy, accusing him of posting "false" information, is wrong. I doubt you would be so accusatory had the error been made by a more respected member.
[/quote]
I don't know of any more respected member here who would deliberately leave out specific details that made the subject of his post false. (Accidentally, sure, but Brian admitted that it wasn't an accident.) As I said, all Brian would have had to do is to say something like "a group of shows that included Millionaire" or "Millionaire and some other shows you've probably never heard of" or the like.
And again, I don't think that Brian's intent was to deceive, which is why I called his post false rather than a lie. But after having dealt with Adam Kleist -- not to mention several GSN board members who routinely traffic in "facts" that aren't and are ticked that we hold people to a higher standard here -- I don't want there to be even a suggestion that we approve of people posting information that they know isn't true. Perhaps my tone could have been better, but I think that to let it pass entirely without comment or a warning
would have constituted special treatment.
(Memo to the people who have told me in email that I do Chris's bidding and/or he does mine, and to anyone else who shares that sentiment: do you still think that? :-)