(Untitled)

[sartorias]

The unnamed agency in our previous post has chosen to come forward to present their perception of our exchange. We confirm that it was the agency we referred to. We stand by every word we wrote in our original article

Comments

[sartorias]

I guess I was naïve. I still can't figure out how the heck it would get out. From the outset we were being careful not to name names, as we believed that the issue was the self-censorship that we felt was going on in the industry. We never wanted the issue to be about this particular agency, but about a much bigger problem.

but you are right, there is that element in human nature that tends to reduce complicated and vexing problems to finger-pointing, as if calling somebody a villain is going to make the whole problem go away.

[barbarienne]

I'm not sure what your point is, here? Should past bad behavior by others direct good people to keep quiet?

[akirlu]

I think the point is that it's naive to suppose that past behavior is not a pretty good guide to future behavior.

[barbarienne]

Yes, but how is that supposed to figure in the big picture, here? Naive or knowing, should they not have brought up the subject?

[akirlu]

Here's a thought, maybe it wasn't speaking to that particular point? Maybe the point is simply that it's a data point you might wish to take into account when deciding to bring it up, not a prescription of how to decide at all?

[barbarienne]

Please forgive me for being all results-oriented. It would never occur to me that people of Rachel's and Sherwood's ages and experiences would need to be told that the world is populated by humans who act like humans have always acted.

[akirlu]

Well, that's not what Will said, so, whatevs, snookie.

[sartorias]

Thread going bye-bye from here.

[lady_ganesh]

Cynically, I wonder if it got out because someone else (perhaps several someones) has had the identical experience with this agent.