Originally posted by MarkJerling It's a rumour. Why would he disclose his source? Said source may never give him inside info again.
You're being far too tough on the OP. He had no obligation to share what he heard. He could well have kept that knowledge to himself. Instead, he shared what he was told, from someone he perceived as a credible source.
This is no different to years ago when I confirmed that I had been told that Ricoh was definitely working on the K-1. I had a credible source inside Ricoh who gave me that information. If that source had turned out to not be credible - How does that sully my reputation?
This is essentially like co-signing.
Of course, you were under no compulsion to share what you heard, but you did,
When you reported a rumor, you are putting your name down next to his, but we can see only yours.
It would have sullied your reputation because {despite not needing to} you would have trusted someone who turned out not to be reliable.
The next time you repeated a rumor, at least some would say "This is someone who believed ....," {like believing in Australia}
added: My original point was that the OP must have had good reason to trust this source, just as he would have to trust someone to co-sign a loan.
added: I would have responded to Mark ii earlier, but my wife and I were out having a nice quiet dinner together