RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC

It was me who posted the note about Dave Barrett and High Point to
this board and I had my facts wrong.

The person involved in that deal with the FCT-150 was a Dave Barnett
(a part-time cop no less) out of Philadelphia, not Dave Barrett of
High Point Scientific.

I know a few things about Dave Barrett. He works hard, loves the sky,
and is enthusiastic about sharing what he knows. I spoke with him
today and he was quite gracious despite my rude and incorrect
accusations. He is a true gentleman and while this apology can't undo
the ugliness that proceeded it - it's a start.

Likewise - any insinuations about the integrity of the folks at High
Point Scientific were way off base. Clearly they would not employ Mr.
Barrett if he weren't trustworthy. They deserve better than to be
blindsided by an anonymous post that gets its facts wrong.

Please understand that my motivations were to correct a very serious
wrong and continuing hardship that is hurting a good friend.

Rob Hunt

One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Rob Hunt" wrote in message
m...
It was me who posted the note about Dave Barrett and High Point to
this board and I had my facts wrong.

The person involved in that deal with the FCT-150 was a Dave Barnett
(a part-time cop no less) out of Philadelphia, not Dave Barrett of
High Point Scientific.

I know a few things about Dave Barrett. He works hard, loves the sky,
and is enthusiastic about sharing what he knows. I spoke with him
today and he was quite gracious despite my rude and incorrect
accusations. He is a true gentleman and while this apology can't undo
the ugliness that proceeded it - it's a start.

Likewise - any insinuations about the integrity of the folks at High
Point Scientific were way off base. Clearly they would not employ Mr.
Barrett if he weren't trustworthy. They deserve better than to be
blindsided by an anonymous post that gets its facts wrong.

Please understand that my motivations were to correct a very serious
wrong and continuing hardship that is hurting a good friend.

Rob Hunt

One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Rob Hunt" wrote in message
m...
It was me who posted the note about Dave Barrett and High Point to
this board and I had my facts wrong.

The person involved in that deal with the FCT-150 was a Dave Barnett
(a part-time cop no less) out of Philadelphia, not Dave Barrett of
High Point Scientific.

I know a few things about Dave Barrett. He works hard, loves the sky,
and is enthusiastic about sharing what he knows. I spoke with him
today and he was quite gracious despite my rude and incorrect
accusations. He is a true gentleman and while this apology can't undo
the ugliness that proceeded it - it's a start.

Likewise - any insinuations about the integrity of the folks at High
Point Scientific were way off base. Clearly they would not employ Mr.
Barrett if he weren't trustworthy. They deserve better than to be
blindsided by an anonymous post that gets its facts wrong.

Please understand that my motivations were to correct a very serious
wrong and continuing hardship that is hurting a good friend.

Rob Hunt

One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...

Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered his
mistake but he do the right thing here.

At least for that he deserves congratulations....

jon

One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...

Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered his
mistake but he do the right thing here.

At least for that he deserves congratulations....

jon

Jon Isaacs wrote:
One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...


Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered his
mistake but he do the right thing here.

At least for that he deserves congratulations....

jon

I have been following this thread all day Jon, and I do applaud your
reasoning. It's my intention to do do business with High Point and Dave
Barrett: That may ease "some" pain, although probably, not mine. :-)

It seems this group could be of some assistance to the "injured" party
though? Nine BIG is a lot of bucks and if the instrument is -indeed-
listed for sale on a BB, it seems, with the possible Legal ramifications
involved, the BB might want to review the listing until this situation
can be resolved to everyones satisfaction.


jon (another)

Jon Isaacs wrote:
One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...


Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered his
mistake but he do the right thing here.

At least for that he deserves congratulations....

jon

I have been following this thread all day Jon, and I do applaud your
reasoning. It's my intention to do do business with High Point and Dave
Barrett: That may ease "some" pain, although probably, not mine. :-)

It seems this group could be of some assistance to the "injured" party
though? Nine BIG is a lot of bucks and if the instrument is -indeed-
listed for sale on a BB, it seems, with the possible Legal ramifications
involved, the BB might want to review the listing until this situation
can be resolved to everyones satisfaction.


jon (another)

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place,
is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...

Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try
to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered
his
mistake but he do the right thing here.

At least for that he deserves congratulations....

jon

Had it been a mere slip of the tongue, I would entirely agree.

But it appears as if he selected SAA for his forum with deliberation, and
did at least SOME basic research into the individual; enough to determine
his place of business. Then he elected to use inflammatory rhetoric and
innuendo, with the apparent intent to deliver the greatest impact
possible, including potentially damaging the company where his victim
works, all without determining, without doubt, if it WAS the right
person... Then he delivered his attack, using an alias.

That sure SEEMS like a deliberate, premeditated attack. Not a minor
honest, or careless, mistake. There's considerable difference between
accidentally stepping on someone's toe, and making, lighting, and throwing
a Molotov cocktail at them, while wearing a mask...

I agree that he has done as much as he knows how to make amends.

It isn't for me to decide whether he should be forgiven. You and I can
forgive him in our own contexts, though I don't think our forgiveness is
the central issue here. You're entitled to think this is none of my
business, although all of SAA, including us, was certainly his intended
audience.

My real point here is, and has been, not directly about chastising him,
but to emphasize to everyone that when you do something like this, being
sorry can't always undo what has been done, even when you're quite
sincere.

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place,
is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...

Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try
to
right his wrong. I imagine he was quite embarrassed when he discovered
his
mistake but he do the right thing here.

At least for that he deserves congratulations....

jon

Had it been a mere slip of the tongue, I would entirely agree.

But it appears as if he selected SAA for his forum with deliberation, and
did at least SOME basic research into the individual; enough to determine
his place of business. Then he elected to use inflammatory rhetoric and
innuendo, with the apparent intent to deliver the greatest impact
possible, including potentially damaging the company where his victim
works, all without determining, without doubt, if it WAS the right
person... Then he delivered his attack, using an alias.

That sure SEEMS like a deliberate, premeditated attack. Not a minor
honest, or careless, mistake. There's considerable difference between
accidentally stepping on someone's toe, and making, lighting, and throwing
a Molotov cocktail at them, while wearing a mask...

I agree that he has done as much as he knows how to make amends.

It isn't for me to decide whether he should be forgiven. You and I can
forgive him in our own contexts, though I don't think our forgiveness is
the central issue here. You're entitled to think this is none of my
business, although all of SAA, including us, was certainly his intended
audience.

My real point here is, and has been, not directly about chastising him,
but to emphasize to everyone that when you do something like this, being
sorry can't always undo what has been done, even when you're quite
sincere.

Jon Isaacs wrote:
One of the things about shooting someone, especially in a public place, is
that it's hard to take back the bullet once the damage is done, and you
discover you shot the wrong person.

People tend to remember things like that...


Yes, but I think the Original Poster has done as much as possible to try to
right his wrong.

He can also request Google not archive the original post - Google has a
mechanism in place to retroactively remove posts, I believe. The post
then wouldn't show up in quite so many searches. Many people apparently
believe usenet posts are ephemeral; they are not, and Google isn't the
only archive - posts are spread all over the world and therefore
inevitably stored in numerous backup systems.

You will note that the original poster "corrected" his mistake by naming
a second person with a supposed occupation; who as far as we know is
also completely innocent. This poster gets no grace from me - he clearly
didn't learn from his stupidity, instead repeating it, as if his
behavior is OK if he just had the right name to publically slander.

If he has a problem with someone, let him take it up with the
individual; if he then gets no relief, the local police and court system
are set up to handle just such cases, including small claims court.