<p>“The emails are attached. It’s over 100 pages which I do think qualifies as reams. Sorry.”</p>
<p>I just went through them. There are maybe 8 pages of any substance, the rest are just calendar checks and re-forwards, so “100 pages” is a worthless characterization when 80 of them are forwards and replies containing the originals. About the only thing that you can deduce is that UVA said that the facts of an incident in spring 2014 are incorrect and for privacy reasons can’t say any more. That’s a far cry from “UVA said the whole article is a lie.” </p>
<p>Are you a narrative journalist, then? You said the emails said that UVA called the story a big fat lie. They showed nothing of the sort. </p>
<p>Since you changed / edited your post but you can’t edit where I copied it, here were the words you used: "“incidentally, UVA has released reams of emails with Rolling Stone and are finally calling the article a lie.”</p>
<p>Are you sticking with that characterization? </p>
<p>"“incidentally, UVA has released reams of emails with Rolling Stone and are finally calling the article a lie.”</p>
<p>" Are you sticking with that characterization? "</p>
<p>Well, yes. I’m not sure what the fuss is about since false and lie are basically interchangeable and 100 pages is reams. So yeah. But, we already know it’s not true so what is the big deal, exactly?</p>
<p>Can someone please fact-check this? I would have thought a rector is simply a campus minister, not an official member of a governing board who could speak for the university. </p>
<p>You’re right, Bay and blue bayou. I wrongly thought that the Rector was a religious position. I’ll agree that the Rector speaks for the University and his calling the article a malicious falsehood counts as the University saying it’s a big lie.</p>
<p>too bad mini is stil not an active poster, since he was an expert on drug and alcohol abuse. One thing that surprised me, is the regionality (at least according to this study):</p>
<p>"Marie1234, you are not surviving fact check.</p>
<p>You didn’t read the emails, did you?" </p>
<p>I read a good number of the emails most of which are about scheduling and the university is not saying much but they clearly disagree with the writer’s characterization of key elements of the story as written and a spokesman has called it a “malicious falsehood” and all I said was they called it a lie which is a synonym. The best part is when they get off of a conference call with the writer and start shaking thier heads in dismay at what they perceive as her nasty disposition. She also works very hard to leave the impression without saying so that she spoke with Dean Eramo when she clearly didn’t. She was writing creatively to give herself factual cover except for the mention of the specific frat which caused the big problems. That doesn’t mean something in there couldn’t be true. It’s long story. Something probably is. But, so what? It’s not the important stuff that got all of the attention otherwise she would be saying so right about now and instead, we have crickets. Anyway, I said lie and they said malicious falsehood so I survive. </p>
<p>The emails and your links do not say what you said. The emails were written before the story came out.
The story was not called a big lie in the emails. It hadn’t been printed yet. UVA said one story that had yet to be printed was unture. UVA did not know what the story was going to look like in print. </p>
<p>There was another quote from somebody at UVA, and I am paraphrasing, “we want the article to be factual”. </p>
<p>You have mentioned the emails as proof UVA said the story was a big lie. That is untrue.</p>
</p>
</p>