On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:58:48 EDT, William Herrin said: > It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate > but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.) > constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.
Right. The point is that by the same "what is the personal gain" standard, it isn't obvious that redacted == fraud by definition. If I have an alternate physical mailbox and a redacted electronic address for the exact same reason (privacy and security), how is one fraudulent and the other not?
pgpMhQol6z0MX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
