Partly Response-ish
Sep. 30th, 2006 09:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiI admit that I haven't read all of the posts from Micheka aka Laura aka Purple Popple aka Partly Bouncy, but I've read enough to know that people are going to have questions.
But more than that, it seems from Michela's account that various users of the Sugarquill and Gryffindor Tower forums/sites have been hearing lies about me for years. There's things in Michela's account which are completely fiction. I mean, what can one possibly say about
...except that it's entirely fictional. Someone created a story, perhaps to cause other people to fear me, and to fear Cassie. That's all it is - a story - the same kind of story that parents tell their kids to keep them from going into the candy store across the street. Urban legend, whatever you want to call it, it's a lie.*
So if you've been told of something evil, nefarious, underhanded, malicious or bad that I've done - ask me if it's true, and I'll let you know. But since tomorrow night marks the start of Yom Kippur, and thus I'm going to be mostly-offline through Monday night, I can't answer everything - but I'll answer any questions people have about any contents of her posts or any comments made on B_P before things were deleted there, or on her own JF account. Anon commenting will be on through Sunday and again on Tuesday, and IP logging will be off at the same times. If I can't do all the answering, I'll finish on Tuesday and afterwards.
But I do want to deal with a few things sooner than later, because they're attacks on my professionalism and on me as a lawyer.
I did use my blackberry on occasion to post to various private (ie ungoogleable archives that are not accessable by members of the public unless they join them) Yahoogroups. This was actually allowed under our internet usage policy - we could use our blackberries for occasional personal usage - the same way that people in many offices can use their office phones for occasional personal usage, like to make a lunch date with a friend or check in to make sure the kids have made it home from school.
I'll defer to Rebcca Tushnet's law journal article regarding where I based some of my feelings in 2000 and 2001 regarding disclaimers, and note that I don't think that there was a fandom-standard for disclaimers at that time, in any way, especially because "senior" fanfiction people like Cairnsy at ffn did not have any disclaimers on
their stories, not even of the HP characters and content. But YMMV and reasonable minds may differ.
I don't know where she's getting hte idea that Sinead stalked Cassie but on the matter of sinead, I'll defer to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kelleyscorpio's post to Michela on B_P back in June - Kelley, I know you sent me the link this week and that was the first time I'd seen it, but I can't find the url now - let me know so I can edit it into this if that's ok?
I've seen that people are wondering why I discussed fannish things at work.
It's a long story... but a nice one.
My first month at Carlton Fields was in October of 2000. I was in a "satellite" office with attorneys from a law firm that had been a small and independent firm for over a dozen years, and had just merged into CF. At said small firm, there was a firmwide tradition of dressing up for Halloween, and in 2000, my boss, and at least one other attorney, and IIRC a paralegal, showed up in full Star Trek regalia. Boss told me that day that he was a Trekker, and it was then that I first saw his Klingon dictionary on his bookcase. I admitted to my Harry Potter and Crowded House fannishness (I used to mod the frenz.com forums withaswas) and he promised me a day off to go see the film the day it opened the following year, noting that he always took the morning off when a Trek film opened.
I felt comfortable being a fan because I knew I was around other people who had attended cons, who brought their fannishness into the workplace to some degree, and who didn't blink at the pre-release
Sorcerer's Stone poster I had framed on the wall.
I know I'm lucky to have had these experiences, but I am not the only one. I know of lawyers who have served as counsel to fandom groups, with the knowledge and support of their firms - and they sometimes even get pro bono credit for it. I know accountants who've done the same. And I personally think it's terrific.
I was not fired from Carlton Fields in November of 2001 because of posts I made online in June of 2001. No law firm would ever wait nearly six months to fire someone for violating firm ethics rules or guidelines. Too much liability risk. I left Carlton Fields, along with the other attorneys in my department, when the firm disolved the San Jose office and the entire Internet Law department when we just didn't have enough business after the death of the department's co-head, Keith Stephens, the previous spring, only six months after the department had started. I left on good terms with everyone and have lunched, dined and hung
out with former colleagues since.
I hope this clarifies a few things, and I'm off to re-allow anon comments and turn off the IP logging.
ETA: Anons are unscreened again.
But more than that, it seems from Michela's account that various users of the Sugarquill and Gryffindor Tower forums/sites have been hearing lies about me for years. There's things in Michela's account which are completely fiction. I mean, what can one possibly say about
> It is also about this time, in the spring of 2002,
> unsubstantiated rumors circulated saying that Heidi Tandy was going after
> an adult woman who had left Cassandra Claire negative feedback. Along
> with Stacey and with Cassandra Claire's involvement in helping with IP
> information, they tracked down the woman and her employer. Supposedly,
> one of them contacted the employer and informed the employer of the
> woman's fannish activities. This led to the woman being fired. This story
> cannot be verified and the truthfulness of it is almost not important.
> What is important is that people heard this story and believed it to be
> true. The story helped stem a great deal of criticism regarding Heidi and
> Cassandra Claire's actions out of fear that the duo would do similar
> things to the unfortunate person who crossed them.
...except that it's entirely fictional. Someone created a story, perhaps to cause other people to fear me, and to fear Cassie. That's all it is - a story - the same kind of story that parents tell their kids to keep them from going into the candy store across the street. Urban legend, whatever you want to call it, it's a lie.*
So if you've been told of something evil, nefarious, underhanded, malicious or bad that I've done - ask me if it's true, and I'll let you know. But since tomorrow night marks the start of Yom Kippur, and thus I'm going to be mostly-offline through Monday night, I can't answer everything - but I'll answer any questions people have about any contents of her posts or any comments made on B_P before things were deleted there, or on her own JF account. Anon commenting will be on through Sunday and again on Tuesday, and IP logging will be off at the same times. If I can't do all the answering, I'll finish on Tuesday and afterwards.
But I do want to deal with a few things sooner than later, because they're attacks on my professionalism and on me as a lawyer.
By this time, Heidi was posting to fan fiction mailing lists from an
e-mail address that included information regarding the law firm she
was working for. The signature from that e-mail address added to every
post as a text file specified that the advice offered in it should not
be considered as legal advice.
I did use my blackberry on occasion to post to various private (ie ungoogleable archives that are not accessable by members of the public unless they join them) Yahoogroups. This was actually allowed under our internet usage policy - we could use our blackberries for occasional personal usage - the same way that people in many offices can use their office phones for occasional personal usage, like to make a lunch date with a friend or check in to make sure the kids have made it home from school.
I'll defer to Rebcca Tushnet's law journal article regarding where I based some of my feelings in 2000 and 2001 regarding disclaimers, and note that I don't think that there was a fandom-standard for disclaimers at that time, in any way, especially because "senior" fanfiction people like Cairnsy at ffn did not have any disclaimers on
their stories, not even of the HP characters and content. But YMMV and reasonable minds may differ.
I don't know where she's getting hte idea that Sinead stalked Cassie but on the matter of sinead, I'll defer to
kelleyscorpio's post to Michela on B_P back in June - Kelley, I know you sent me the link this week and that was the first time I'd seen it, but I can't find the url now - let me know so I can edit it into this if that's ok?I've seen that people are wondering why I discussed fannish things at work.
It's a long story... but a nice one.
My first month at Carlton Fields was in October of 2000. I was in a "satellite" office with attorneys from a law firm that had been a small and independent firm for over a dozen years, and had just merged into CF. At said small firm, there was a firmwide tradition of dressing up for Halloween, and in 2000, my boss, and at least one other attorney, and IIRC a paralegal, showed up in full Star Trek regalia. Boss told me that day that he was a Trekker, and it was then that I first saw his Klingon dictionary on his bookcase. I admitted to my Harry Potter and Crowded House fannishness (I used to mod the frenz.com forums with
aswas) and he promised me a day off to go see the film the day it opened the following year, noting that he always took the morning off when a Trek film opened.I felt comfortable being a fan because I knew I was around other people who had attended cons, who brought their fannishness into the workplace to some degree, and who didn't blink at the pre-release
Sorcerer's Stone poster I had framed on the wall.
I know I'm lucky to have had these experiences, but I am not the only one. I know of lawyers who have served as counsel to fandom groups, with the knowledge and support of their firms - and they sometimes even get pro bono credit for it. I know accountants who've done the same. And I personally think it's terrific.
I was not fired from Carlton Fields in November of 2001 because of posts I made online in June of 2001. No law firm would ever wait nearly six months to fire someone for violating firm ethics rules or guidelines. Too much liability risk. I left Carlton Fields, along with the other attorneys in my department, when the firm disolved the San Jose office and the entire Internet Law department when we just didn't have enough business after the death of the department's co-head, Keith Stephens, the previous spring, only six months after the department had started. I left on good terms with everyone and have lunched, dined and hung
out with former colleagues since.
I hope this clarifies a few things, and I'm off to re-allow anon comments and turn off the IP logging.
ETA: Anons are unscreened again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 01:51 am (UTC)> true. The story helped stem a great deal of criticism regarding Heidi and
> Cassandra Claire's actions out of fear that the duo would do similar
> things to the unfortunate person who crossed them.
See, I agree with the first part, that it was important, but not with her conclusion. If anything it shows that you can't trust every story you read on the internet.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 01:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 02:49 am (UTC)Simply put, I have a hard time believing a cabal of two that doesn't include sockpuppets.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 03:31 am (UTC)Actually, while not being that much interested in internet wanks, I have wondered why you weren't defending yourself as much a I might have. I realize it's a waste of time with most of these people to even try to explain things to them. Nuance and facts have no place in their world.
I did read someone's comments awhile back about how it doesn't help to have your friends defend you in these situations. There is a point to that. It's probably best to explain your side and they'll either believe it not. You don't have to convince some at all. You'll never convince some. It's those that have no stake in these type of events that might actually take the time to listen and could possibly be persuaded to see your side.
However, they also shouldn't assume that lies and insults, as opposed to actually stating facts, will fly. This ain't B_P.
*That was as polite as I could write that* ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 04:37 am (UTC)Sure, it's right here:
http://www.journalfen.net/community/bad_penny/1074.html?thread=10546#t10546
I made a sort of follow-up post with more specific info in Part ... 4, I think, so a bit bummed that comments are gone. I have the majority of it, though, so will find that and post it, too.
More Sinead info
Date: 2006-10-01 04:52 am (UTC)"At the same time that the Jeff situation was going down, there was another alleged stalker incident. This involved a university student named Sinead. Cassandra Claire, Heidi and Stacey were accusing Sinead and her boyfriend, Dai, of hacking into Yahoo accounts of HPforGrownUps and John Walton in November 2001."
"On December 15, 2001, John Walton's yahoo account was alleged cracked by Sinead or Dai."
Two issues with this paragraph: I don't know the timeline of Jeff's stalking and harrassment of Cassie, but for sake of accuracy, Sinead and Dai's hacking of John's account was after, i.e., not November, but mid-December, as you say below in the second remark.
My second issue is that the characterization is very misleading. Stating that Cassie, Heidi and Stacey were "accusing" Sinead and Dai of this makes it sound, to me, as though they were making unfair and baseless accusations for whatever reasons of their own. In truth, they were behaving towards Sinead, speaking to her, in a manner of full conviction that she did indeed, along with her boyfriend, hack into John's account. And the fundamental reason they behaved this way was based on Sinead's AIM confession to me that she and Dai *did* hack John's account. This confession tallied perfectly with independent IP evidence, so on strength of these, many of us are fully and firmly convinced of what Sinead and Dai did.
So I will say again that they were not randomly 'accusing' her for no good reason, picking on her, being mean bullies for kicks, etc. They were angry at her for what she had done, what she herself said she had done.
I've done some checking, and here's some further information:
If you recall in my account of the Sinead/HPfGU events, I mentioned that John's hacker had sent a 'tee-hee, gotcha' type of email back to John, basically flaunting that they'd been able to access his account. Also I'd said that because the situation with Cassie being harrassed and stalked was so recent, folks trying to learn who'd hacked John were making an FA/fic connection to those events. Well, I've found the text of the 'gotcha' email (the email was dated Dec 16, 2001, as John was in Scotland at the time), and see that there was even stronger reason to connect John's hacker to the situation with Cassie. The first line of this email is removed as it explicitly states John's personal info that Sinead and Dai used to break into his account; that is all that's been removed, though:
---
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:27:18 -0800 (PST)
From: John Walton <johnwaltonvu@...>
Subject: you
To: john@...
I thoroughly enjoyed looking at the inner sancdom of the fictionalley
mods. I was also amused by the ease by which I gained access.
love
bunny
---
Sidenote -- While I don't *know* whether she read mod discussions at FA, by her own statements made directly to me, and her statements made on the HPfGU OTC list, she *did* read HPfGU mods' discussions, so I'm guessing she did indeed read FA discussions as well.
Kelley's chat with Sinead, pt 1
Date: 2006-10-01 05:04 am (UTC)dana73w (5:49:00 PM): Can I ask, why not just send the letter to Penny and/or the Mods in the first place?
LucyYDesi (5:49:19 PM): I was not thinking... I know ... it was dumb
dana73w (5:49:56 PM): How did you know that "E.D." was being
considered as an elf?
LucyYDesi (5:50:23 PM): Um... that's not really my position to tell
dana73w (5:50:34 PM): Why's that?
LucyYDesi (5:50:45 PM): I really don't want anyone to get arrested or get into big trouble
dana73w (5:51:11 PM): What? Arrested? What do you mean?
LucyYDesi (5:51:44 PM): Dai was the one that hacked into John's
profile a while back and I read into the boards using John's name.. It was harmless.. I told him to give it back because I felt bad reading the private boards
LucyYDesi (5:51:59 PM): don't tell anyone please
dana73w (5:52:10 PM): Oh, I see. The Mods list you mean?
LucyYDesi (5:52:14 PM): yes
LucyYDesi (5:52:22 PM): Please don't tell anyone, Kelley
LucyYDesi (5:52:31 PM): he was just having a bit of fun
LucyYDesi (5:52:41 PM): we didn't do anything bad with John's name
dana73w (5:53:08 PM): Oh, okay. We couldn't figure that out. We were concerned that E.D. would be hurt about the not being an elf due to her post part.
LucyYDesi (5:54:18 PM): we weren't the stalker like John said in chat
Sinead chat, pt 2
Date: 2006-10-01 05:06 am (UTC)LucyYDesi (5:55:10 PM): I heard pandemoneum erupted
dana73w (5:55:34 PM): Well, of course there was a lot of concern.
LucyYDesi (5:56:08 PM): John made a pretty big deal out of it and
everyone rushed to change their secret question
LucyYDesi (5:56:37 PM): I didn't change my secret question because I have no idea what my secret question's answer is
LucyYDesi (5:56:53 PM): it's soooo obscure I forgot what the answer was
LucyYDesi (5:57:10 PM): so I'm being careful not to forget my password at all lol
dana73w (5:57:16 PM): John did say on the mods list that his account had had the password changed or something. He did say hacker, but not knowing who it was or why they would be interested in his account, so didn't know what to make of it. Oh, what was the question?
LucyYDesi (5:57:21 PM): therapy
LucyYDesi (5:57:24 PM): that's what it is
LucyYDesi (5:57:28 PM): I have no idea what the answer is
dana73w (5:57:52 PM): Ah! Hope you don't need to ever use it, haha...
LucyYDesi (5:59:16 PM): I've tried to answer it
LucyYDesi (5:59:41 PM): John's was _____________? [I've left this out, even though it was changed back then and is no longer relevant.]
LucyYDesi (5:59:58 PM): and it was easy...
dana73w (5:59:59 PM): Wow, you mean Dai guessed what it was?
LucyYDesi (6:00:12 PM): I guessed it
LucyYDesi (6:00:18 PM): and Dai didn't believe me
LucyYDesi (6:00:30 PM): and it worked
dana73w (6:01:35 PM): How long were you able to access his account that way?
LucyYDesi (6:02:19 PM): it was really easy
Sinead chat, pt 3
Date: 2006-10-01 05:10 am (UTC)dana73w (6:04:31 PM): Impressive.
LucyYDesi (6:04:51 PM): Not very... I think John got ballistic
LucyYDesi (6:05:06 PM): I remember reading that he was like oh my god my name was stolen!
LucyYDesi (6:05:15 PM): and I felt bad and told Dai to give it back
dana73w (6:05:51 PM): How long can you have access that way? Doesn't it alert John that his password was changed or something? How do you give it back? (I'm tech-clueless, haha...)
LucyYDesi (6:06:07 PM): As long as we wanted
dana73w (6:06:21 PM): Wow, so you had it a while then?
LucyYDesi (6:06:48 PM): I think John got a notification that his
password was changed at his john@... e-mail
dana73w (6:07:20 PM): Did that happen as soon as you got in? Or did you have some time before?
LucyYDesi (6:07:50 PM): it took him some time since we did it around 1 am his time in Scotland
dana73w (6:08:18 PM): Oh, so it was hours, not days or something then?
LucyYDesi (6:08:45 PM): yes
dana73w (6:08:54 PM): Okay, I see.
LucyYDesi (6:09:05 PM): No one knows who John's hacker was so everyone concluded that it was Cassie's stalker that hacked into his account
LucyYDesi (6:09:11 PM): and it's been that way since
LucyYDesi (6:09:43 PM): but would you think Cassie's stalker would have given it back?
dana73w (6:09:47 PM): How do you give it back? Yep, I think that's what people were figuring. Not knowing who or why was pretty upsetting for him, of course.
dana73w (6:10:02 PM): Did they ever learn who her stalker was?
LucyYDesi (6:10:19 PM): or would you think that Cassie's stalker would have posted on the boards?
LucyYDesi (6:10:27 PM): Yes I can't remember his name
dana73w (6:10:47 PM): Oh yeah, it was a guy and a girl, right?
LucyYDesi (6:10:47 PM): they found out him through his ISP
dana73w (6:11:11 PM): Wasn't there a girl involved, too? His wife or something?
LucyYDesi (6:11:12 PM): well mostly the guy but the girl used to be a mod over at a HP website
LucyYDesi (6:11:17 PM): wife
dana73w (6:11:21 PM): Ah, okay.
LucyYDesi (6:11:33 PM): Dai couldn't be found out though because he used an AOL ISP
dana73w (6:11:54 PM): Oh? How is AOL different?
LucyYDesi (6:12:01 PM): I don't know
LucyYDesi (6:12:08 PM): Dai's the technic
LucyYDesi (6:12:09 PM): lol
dana73w (6:12:32 PM): Yeah, I'm so not a tech.
LucyYDesi (6:13:56 PM): I don't want Dai to get into big trouble because of that
dana73w (6:14:17 PM): Oh, with John's account, you mean?
LucyYDesi (6:15:43 PM): yes
dana73w (6:16:05 PM): Well, sure, I understand that.
LucyYDesi (6:16:05 PM): he gave it back and I don't think he should be punished at all
dana73w (6:16:44 PM): How would he be punished? If John turned him in, you mean?
LucyYDesi (6:17:12 PM): yeah
LucyYDesi (6:17:18 PM): John got his account back
LucyYDesi (6:17:22 PM): changed his password
LucyYDesi (6:17:34 PM): made his secret question unanswerable
dana73w (6:17:50 PM): Ah. Yeah, he hasn't said anything about having any more problems, so guess all is well now.
LucyYDesi (6:18:14 PM): I wanted to see what he chose as his secret question and it's sooo unanswerable
dana73w (6:18:24 PM): Oh really?
dana73w (6:18:59 PM): Guess he's safe now, eh...
LucyYDesi (6:19:06 PM): it's one really long question but shortened like this (taking the preceding sentance as an example) iorlqbslt
dana73w (6:19:42 PM): Wow, yeah, guess that's unanswerable all right.
LucyYDesi (6:19:47 PM): but I think my "therapy" secret question is the most obscure of them all
LucyYDesi (6:19:57 PM): even I don't know the answer to it
LucyYDesi (6:20:04 PM): it's so obscure I don't know the answer
LucyYDesi (6:20:12 PM): I've tried answering it
dana73w (6:20:19 PM): Ha! That's a bit of a drawback, isn't it?
LucyYDesi (6:20:19 PM): but none of them were right
LucyYDesi (6:21:06 PM): anyway, john got his account back, nothing bad happened with it on the mod boards, we didn't do anything wild with it,
LucyYDesi (6:21:19 PM): so I don't think dai should be punished
LucyYDesi (6:21:29 PM): or me because I answered the question right
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 06:14 am (UTC)I think this should be the disclaimer for the whole 12-part mess, except that real people are having their names dragged through the mud. Again. Yeah it's a history, if by history you mean vendetta.
Would you mind...
Date: 2006-10-01 09:31 am (UTC)The suspicion that at least one motive for the switch was to remove the comments (which were getting increasingly critical and pointing out specific factual innaccuracies with dates and cites) and to allow her to indulge in revisionist history is certainly borne out with that example of the change between the original and what she's now putting up. Any more examples which people can find?
AJ Hall
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 10:41 am (UTC)Re: Would you mind...
Date: 2006-10-01 11:04 am (UTC)Please feel free to deploy the screencapped version as appropriate!
AJHall
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 11:19 am (UTC)I'd planned to catch up when I got back in August, but then Brian - my sister's husband - had a seizure and heard attack on July 31 - the same day we flew home from LA. The next night I went back to LA, and he died two days later, so the weeks after that were spent at the funeral, sitting shivah, and helping my sister pick up the pieces of her life. When she went back to LA a week ago to pack to move, a window opened in my life for the first time since early June. Liz comes back in a week and I don't know what will happen then in terms of time, but at least I'll be "local" more than I was in june/july.
Re: Would you mind...
Date: 2006-10-01 11:26 am (UTC)So weird.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 11:32 am (UTC)Re: Would you mind...
Date: 2006-10-01 11:59 am (UTC)But she's obviously frightened to let the truth come out about this point; here's my comment in full which she's just deleted:
"If your "edits for accuracy" are of the standard of this example I have to doubt whether you really do believe that "the truth is important".
Originally you said:
"...The next level of the Inner Circle consisted of those with ties to the
publishing world. Unlike the doers and peripheral members who were centered
around the three, this group was centered largely around Cassandra Claire.
Its members consisted of A. J. Hall, Holly Black, Peg Kerr, Ester Friesner,
Kate Nepveu, Barry Goldblatt and others. Cassandra Claire appears to have,
historically, actively courted this group, being aided in this courting by
the fact that a number of professional authors were in the Harry Potter
fandom in places like HPforGrownUps. Members of this group would enter
Cassandra Claire's orbit and then help Cassandra Claire find others.
Connections with A.J. Hall helped bring about Cassandra Claire's
relationship with Peg Kerr. Connections with Holly Black helped snare Barry
Goldblatt. The end result was that this tier helped Cassandra Claire become
a published author....
You also said in a link which remains live at present (http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php?title=Holly_Black) that
"Holly Black is a professional author and friend of Cassandra Claire. She was introduced to Cassandra Claire by another member of the Harry Potter fan fiction community, AJ Hall"
When both Holly and I contacted you, separately, to tell you that we didn't know each other, and that your account of these alleged meetings and introductions was quite untrue (I have got screencaps, though of course the exchange was deleted when you removed your posts from bad_penny) you have now apparently decided to change the original paragraph to read as follows:
The next level of the Inner Circle consisted of those with ties to the publishing world. Unlike the doers and peripheral members who were centered around the three, this group was centered largely around Cassandra Claire. Its members consisted of [my name omitted] Holly Black, Peg Kerr, Ester Friesner, Kate Nepveu, Barry Goldblatt and others. Cassandra Claire appears to have, historically, actively courted this group, being aided in this courting by the fact that a number of professional authors who were already in the Harry Potter fandom in places like HPforGrownUps. Members of this group would enter Cassandra Claire's orbit and then help Cassandra Claire find others. Connections with Harry Potter fans helped bring about Cassandra Claire's relationship with Peg Kerr. Connections with Holly Black helped snare Barry Goldblatt. The end result was that this tier helped Cassandra Claire become a published author.
I have shown in bold the sum total of your changes from the original. In short, when a specific allegation was drawn to your attention and shown to be false you simply substituted a generalised allegation which conveniently cannot be proved true or false. Some historian!
In the comments to bunny and notjo to entries further down you claim that the problems with the account you gave are minor. Certainly as far as this specific incident is concerned it is minor; nothing bad is going to happen to me because you claimed I was a mover and shaker in the publishing world - actually, as allegations go it's rather flattering. Pity it also happens to be total tosh.
But this happens to be the only aspect of your claims on which I, personally, have direct evidence one way and the other, and I know perfectly well both that what you originally wrote was complete nonsense and that when you were called on that nonsense you weaseled around it in the way shown. Oddly enough, this rather leads me to suspect that the rest of your taradiddles have the same regard for accuracy.
AJ Hall (no journalfen account)"
I'm sure she'll be spinning it that she was threatened with legal action, but that's what I said, and that's what she's evidently scared people might read.
AJH
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 12:04 pm (UTC)AJH
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 01:09 pm (UTC)How is it I missed the entirety of all of this? *so confused*
*hugs*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 04:03 pm (UTC)Fortunately for those involved, even fandom wank, this time, seems by and large to realize that this "history" is mired in inaccuracies and outright lies. Anyone with the remotest interest in or concern for research could have fact-checked these inaccuracies in a matter of minutes; that Michaela didn't care to says volumes about her intentions in posting this drivel. Whatever else they might have been, they certainly weren't "academic."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 04:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-01 04:27 pm (UTC)Where does it graze?
Date: 2006-10-01 04:28 pm (UTC)