WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part XII |
 May 5 2008, 03:00 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Eeylops Owl Cage Cleaner Posts: 212 Joined: 7:30am January 21, 2008 Location: Brushing up on my Gobbledegook    |
Melissa said: "I am sorely tempted to detail exactly how but I don't feel such a rude quote by Mr. Vander Ark should be the reason for that. I don't feel it should be the reason for anything."
As Hermione would say - don't rise. You're doing well, stay strong. Just think of how Harry et. al. were banned from Quidditch by Umbridge because even though they won the match they couldn't resist Draco's taunts. Winners don't need to descend to the level of those who wish they were where you are. 
-------------------- "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see eveything else."
C. S. Lewis, from the essay "Is theology poetry?," delivered to the Oxford Socratic Club, 1944 |
 |
 
 
|
|
May 5 2008, 03:10 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Shopping for a New Firebolt Posts: 836 Joined: 11:35pm February 3, 2006 Location: Harry Potter Heaven |
*Gives Melissa a hug*
I'm sorry. I'm sure you went into an interview with The New Yorker thinking that they at least wouldn't twist your words to their editor's needs. Hinoema: I'm just as confused about the cancellation clause as you are. Where're our resident lawyers? This post has been edited by mollywobbles23: May 5 2008, 03:12 AM -------------------- " [Rupert] really has made [Malachy] his own. He's just such a fine film actor. [...] He knows just how much and how little to do - there are wonderful moments of stillness in his performance in Cherrybomb, for all the wildness and energy of the world around him. He's very subtle and expressive." - Daragh Carville, screenwriter of Cherrybomb |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 03:12 AM
Post
#13
|
|
MelvinTLC  Posts: 2,691 Joined: 1:57pm January 4, 2005 Location: My happy place  |
I did, Mollywobbles. I actually like that magazine very much. This is another blow on that level.
Thanks, too, Hinoema, linden. Actually going to bed now. -------------------- "I am not big enough to love things the way I do!"
~Edna St. Vincent Millay |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 03:40 AM
Post
#14
|
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie Posts: 97 Joined: 6:23am January 4, 2007 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia |
None of this surprises me, given the way many journalists have handled this case. For years they've been trying to nail down something negative about Jo, and for the most part she has evaded that, now they have something they can truly twist around and they are pulling out all of the stops. Whenever someone reaches Jo's level of fame and salary the media tries to tear them down as quickly as they raised the person early in their career. They used Melissa to once again try and achieve their goal, and it's disgusting.
Melissa, you've really handled this with a lot of class. As for Steve's comments, I will only say that I found a comment made by him in the article quite hypocritical. Oh, sorry if this has already been answered but when will we find out the outcome of this case? This post has been edited by Sionainn: May 5 2008, 03:42 AM --------------------  Thanks to theonlysong for the great icon and to kendra.dumbledore for the sig pic! |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 03:47 AM
Post
#15
|
|
Personal Secretary to The Minister of Magic  Posts: 9,192 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005 Location: near Muggleswick, UK |
QUOTE(Sionainn @ May 5 2008, 08:40 AM)  Oh, sorry if this has already been answered but when will we find out the outcome of this case? For the first stage, there is a deadline for certain lawyer submissions on 9th May, and then the judge will rule sometime after that, a week or two later at a guess, but if the whole thing goes to appeal it could be many more months, or even years before the whole thing is settled.QUOTE(Sionainn @ May 5 2008, 08:40 AM) As for Steve's comments, I will only say that I found a comment made by him in the article quite hypocritical. It is probably only fair to point out that if Melissa is being misquoted, then Steve could be as well.
This post has been edited by roonwit: May 5 2008, 03:52 AM --------------------  W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 04:02 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
MelvinTLC Posts: 2,691 Joined: 1:57pm January 4, 2005 Location: My happy place |
Well, here's the thing: All the words quoted from he podcast exist in some form, I just either didn't say them or it's been taken out of context. What I said to Mr. Wu on the phone, the three words of it that were used, were, I suppose, accurate - the fact-checker asked if they were, and I said yes.
As for what wasn't on the phone: the "vilified" quote, I believe, was said by Sue, not as "yay, he's vilified," or, "we've vilified him," but as a statement of what FANDOM in general has done. The "ruined good standing," I can almost swear (but would have to listen to the podcast again, as I directed the fact-checker to do) was a rephrase of what was said in court by lawyers; I certainly never said that I believe he has ruined his good standing or whatnot. (Please someone correct me if I am wrong.) The words exist, just not as portrayed. If Mr. Vander Ark is the only source from whom Mr. Wu got that side of the statements, then I have little doubt they're true; I've been taken out of context and misquoted, but he didn't invent anything, that's the difference. No matter what kind of journalism is going on here, I don't believe Mr. Wu would invent wholecloth, if for no other reason than a fact-checker had to call Mr. Vander Ark, just as she did me, and asked if he had said the things he is quoted to have said. (The only other possibility is that their conversation was recorded, which renders the fact-check irrelevant, as he could just hand over the tape.) I noted concern over my podcast quotes and told the fact-checker this, and told the fact-checker to check the podcast, and it's clear they did not, and that is something to be dealt with for sure (and I will deal with it, for sure), but if I said, "No, I never said that," it either wouldnt' be printed or they'd prove to me, via the podcast, that I did. It's different from what Mr. Vander Ark said as he's the only one who could have said yay or nay; I have severe doubts that with an inflammatory statement such as that anything but, "Yes, I said that," would pass muster. If he said, "No, I didn't say that," they wouldn't have gone to print with it; it would be actionable - and distinctly unwise to ignore as such. Mr. Wu would be woefully unintelligent indeed if he didn't think that there would be a distinct possibility that Vander Ark would sue if he felt he'd been slandered; he wouldn't just make it up, though I sincerely wish he had. Honestly, bed. Now. -------------------- "I am not big enough to love things the way I do!"
~Edna St. Vincent Millay |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 04:08 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Personal Secretary to The Minister of Magic Posts: 9,192 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005 Location: near Muggleswick, UK |
QUOTE They have lied to me, misled me, taken advantage of me and, in the end, ruined my good standing with fans and with Rowling. is actually the plaintiffs' lawyer reading out the dreaded email from Steve to Melissa. (day 2 page 332, "They" in this context is RDR).
This post has been edited by roonwit: May 5 2008, 04:16 AM -------------------- W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 04:13 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
QUOTE(roonwit @ May 5 2008, 08:47 AM) For the first stage, there is a deadline for certain lawyer submissions on 9th May, and then the judge will rule sometime after that, a week or two later at a guess, but if the whole thing goes to appeal it could be many more months, or even years before the whole thing is settled. That's what gets me. If- or when- the contract cancellation takes the possibility of publication off the table and renders any judgement providing injunction a moot point, will there be nothing left but a rearguard action to establish the providence of (and responsibility for) the appealed settlements? This post has been edited by Hinoema: May 5 2008, 04:15 AM -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 04:45 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
LC Secret Agent 07 Posts: 516 Joined: 11:22am March 28, 2007 |
I agree with roonwit. I'm no journalist but I've had to deal with them for 30 years on a particular cause and in the UK they have no compunction about straightforward lying, distortions, omissions, and taking out of context. That's important. You can say a word and agree you said it but it can then be taken out of context and put in a very damning/harmful context.
I love Melissa but I think it best to hunt a little first and only after the beast is netted and brought to the ground deal the final blow. Get all the info and ammo then strike/comment. It's amazing how effective it is, to wait, and then correct where necessary. Journalists don't like being faced with their own mediocrity and I have found they correct their mistakes with alacrity if I can prove they're dorks. The case is unlikely to be passed judgement on in less than 2 weeks after 9 May. It is only a feeling but the judge is very meticulous and sharp, and he would not likely take less than 2-4 weeks to research and write up a decision based on a law he knows is technically dodgy in the sense of fluid in nature. Advice to all out there: please don't fall for the oldest journalist's trick in the book. And to Melissa's coffee supplier: you're under a restraining order pal. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 05:43 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Owner of D's Favorite Avatar! Posts: 3,058 Joined: 10:59am June 8, 2005 Location: Exile on Main St |
Melissa, I remembered listening to that Podcast, and you were pretty much staying out of the conversation. Just merely correcting facts about the trial. And I don't think you said anything along the lines of SVA being an outcast, exiled or vilified or whatever someone else might describe it.
It's true, that Melissa's comments were taking out of context in that article, that its also possible SVA were too. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he did say "Melissa has done more to hurt me than Rowling," "I can't blame her for liking her status." After all, he said, Rowling "is God and Melissa is her prophet." He went on, "I am an outcast now. But I still consider myself a 'Harry Potter' fan." I think there could be the possibilty that he is jealous of Melissa. After all Melissa has had the chance to personally interview Jo at least twice. But I don't want to talk much about that, because I know nothing of Melissa and Jo's relationship and interactions with one and another. ETA: Melissa, just checked the podcast. And you don't say "vilified" Sue does say it, but in the context of that in the fandom that he has ruined his good standing. Nothing nasty about it This post has been edited by Lord Montymort: May 5 2008, 07:09 AM --------------------  "If Homer Simpson wants his son to work in a Burlesque House, then Homer Simpson's son will work in a burlesque house!" ...(Marge appears) "Now Marge, you're going to hear a LOT of crazy talk about Bart working in a Burlesque House..." |
|
|
|
