Subject: RE: A delicate question
From: Jason Kuznicki <JKuznicki@cato.org>
Date: 10/21/10, 09:16
To: "'matthewschmitz@gmail.com'" <matthewschmitz@gmail.com>
CC: Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com>, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>, David Schaengold <david.schaengold@gmail.com>, "Scott H. Payne" <scott.h.payne@gmail.com>, Mark Thompson <mwthompson88@yahoo.com>, Rufus F. <rufus138@gmail.com>, Ned Resnikoff <nedresnikoff@gmail.com>, Will Collins <williamf.collins@gmail.com>, "lisakramer1979@aol.com" <lisakramer1979@aol.com>, "Davidaruggiero1973@gmail.com" <Davidaruggiero1973@gmail.com>, "awhaleyb@gmail.com" <awhaleyb@gmail.com>, "williamrandolphbrafford@gmail.com" <williamrandolphbrafford@gmail.com>, Logan Wall <jlwall88@gmail.com>

Fair enough.  Let us be gentlemen even to those who court ungentlemanly behavior.  Perhaps it will piss them off even more.

 

From: matthewschmitz@gmail.com [mailto:matthewschmitz@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:12 AM
To: Jason Kuznicki
Cc: Erik Kain; Barrett Brown; David Schaengold; Scott H. Payne; Mark Thompson; Rufus F.; Ned Resnikoff; Will Collins; lisakramer1979@aol.com; Davidaruggiero1973@gmail.com; awhaleyb@gmail.com; williamrandolphbrafford@gmail.com; Logan Wall
Subject: Re: A delicate question

 

Hey Jason,

Here's the relevant email thread for context. Like I said to Rufus, I really didn't desire to censor anything or step on anyone's toes. So apologies if that's what ended up happening.

-MJS

----

Ah, I see where that post goes against the aim at gentlemanly behavior. It's gone. Not a problem.

- Hide quoted text -

 

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:05 AM, <matthewschmitz@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry again if this was out of line. I really don't mean to set myself up as hall monitor.

 

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Rufus F. <rufus138@gmail.com> wrote:

Sure. Why not? I'll kill it.

 

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:49 PM, <matthewschmitz@gmail.com> wrote:

Rufus,

I by no means to step on a co-blogger's toes. So please forgive what follows if I'm out of line.

Do you think it might be worth deleting at least that one comment that could be read as indirectly musing on Ms. Rittelmeyer's sex life? I fear we're playing into the hands of Mr. Seavey. I've never met Helen or him, and I'm not trying to make a chivalric gesture. But I thought you might want to see that her friend had already reached out to Erik, an indication that this situation is bringing a kind of scrutiny that is unwelcome even to a girl as thick-skinned as Helen.

Thoughts? (Again, sorry...)

Matt



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Re:
To: matthewschmitz@gmail.com


Definitely.

 

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:10 AM, <matthewschmitz@gmail.com> wrote:

Sounds good. I have to say that I really respect Helen's calm response.

 

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com> wrote:

Dara Lind asked me to kill it, to let the story on Helen die out of respect for her - which I gladly did.

 

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:31 PM, <matthewschmitz@gmail.com> wrote:

Erik,

It seems your post on Helen disappeared. Any reason or is it a glitch?

-MS

 

 

 

 



--
Rufus F.

 



--
Rufus F.

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Jason Kuznicki <JKuznicki@cato.org> wrote:

Are we deliberately pulling punches on the Helen Rittlemeyer thingy?   I know the thread didn’t bring out my

 kindest or most gentlemanly instincts.  But I did think that some of the points it raised were valuable, including (if I may say so) the idea that creating extra suffering was satanic rather than Christian.  The Fall being bad enough, as I’m given to understand.