Wednesday, April 20, 2005

A Reply

I've written three posts now on Professor Matt Qvortrup. This is the first one, this is the second, and a third post mentions the story under the sub-heading "More on yesterday's post". As I said in this third post, I emailed the Professor to ask if he could clarify his position.
(I should point out that Professor Qvartrup had already replied before I wrote this post. His email was sent in the morning but didn't arrive in my inbox until later in the day. The interweb can work in mysterious ways.)

In the interest of fairness, and as advised in my email, I will relay the details of the Professor's reply here (with no editing other than to remove the spaces between lines):

Dear Garry
I am afraid that my views in the P&J were taken slightly out of context and that the piece in the Scotsman was severely shortened. This made it look as if I predicted something which I did not, in fact, predict.

I'm in a bit of a rush today so I don't have time to give a considered response I'm sure readers can draw their own conclusions.

I will just add, as I also mentioned in the third post, that I wrote a letter expressing my concerns to the Press and Journal. They have let me know that they will be printing my letter in the next couple of days.

I have to go now. Paxman's interview with Blair will be on in a minute.

No comments: