Interesting historical piece that is expanded and explained here: http://www.lib.unc.edu/ncc/1898/sources/vv.html
>>> RESPONDING TO A CONCERNED FRIEND'S EMAIL:
Nice to see you seem to have accepted my sort of "sideways apology" for being so rough with you (and I received your other two emails as well). Bottom Line: you're a GREAT foil for me -- and you DO make me think. I'm going to share some thoughts "between the lines", which will be in RED below:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM, A CONCERNED FRIEND wrote:
Whether in your apartment or Maurer's hotel room, the interview should be one on one. The presence of a third party tilts your remarks toward possible charge of slander.
>>> True about a third person's presence as one always plays to one's audience!!! Slander charge is OFF THE TABLE since I'm in Mexico and to bring a charge (Mexico has NO libel laws, although SOME states have SOME that are weak -- not sure about Slander, though), one has to file the charges through an absolute LABYRINTH of red tape, mandatory Spanish language filing and speaking, etc. (I tried to file charges against someone two years ago and it was all but impossible).
That said, I'm in for telling the truth to the best of my ability, regardless -- and Kevin knows how to report things responsibly -- although there is more leeway when publishing claims against public people in the US (this is NOT true in the UK).
All the exchange is your property as well as his. The fact is, one day you may say you won't blog about it, and the next day you reverse your gears. You have a see-saw response to persons.
>>> I respond to people in reaction to how they treat me. If you take a look, you will see this. What makes it LOOK different is that I say things most people are afraid to say, so they get confused by their surprise at my audacity and try to save face by blaming me.
THAT said, JOURNALISM of the PRINT persuasion is more formal, and I will NOT screw around with a reporter or paper that has the COURAGE to listen to me with intent to publish (even if this IS Kevin's PERSONAL project, not associated with the paper).
>>> ADDED 30 JULY 2012 at 9:58 AM, CDT: To PERFECTLY clarify the above sentence, I will now add "it turns out that", so that the sentence reads: "THAT said, JOURNALISM of the PRINT persuasion is more formal, and I will NOT screw around with a reporter or paper that has the COURAGE to listen to me with intent to publish (even if it turns out that) this IS Kevin's PERSONAL project, not associated with the paper).
The REAL reason you express this concern is that I am so open about most things that it appears I DON'T keep secrets. Actually, this is EXACTLY WHY it is so EASY for me to keep secrets -- and I do!!! No one presses me because they think I've spilled it all -- or they are afraid what I might say next.
Whether he is electronically recording voices or handwriting notes, express your requirement that before any publication MAURER MUST SUBMIT THE MANUSCRIPT TO YOU FOR APPROVAL, AND UNTIL HE HAS THAT APPROVAL HE MUST NOT PUBLISH.
>>> No, we disagree here. I DO NOT feel the need to control in any way what anyone says about me AT ALL. The truth eventually ALWAYS comes out. I WOULD like to get a copy of the finished product before it goes to press so I can think about a response, but don't demand it. A notice telling when something is soon to be made public WOULD be expected.
Mrs. Menke (Sorry, but I absolutely MUST butt in here to say that if she ever WAS married, either he's left -- or she keeps him in the freezer.) led you down the primrose path so that you revealed your likely defense in court. During an interview with Maurer, you must be very sensitive to where he is leading you. Don't 'fess up to wherever your blog is faking or exaggerating matters. If your credibility is undermined, not only your blog but also your TW book will suffer.
>>> I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that she "led me down the primrose path". I KNEW while it was happening that it was PATENTLY ILLEGAL for her to ask about those things, but it was only LATER that I realized what VALUABLE FAVOR she had actually done me by providing such an easily-proven part of my lawsuits.
You will please recall that I mentioned she had made FOUR pages of notes and even gave a general description of those pages in my blog. So she WONT be able to switch notes so easily for that reason, and if she claims she re-wrote them, condensed them, etc., THAT will be a problem TOO, since I IMMEDIATELY reported on it, giving notice that those pages MUST be saved for Court -- AND HAVE PROOF SHE RECEIVED THOSE EMAILS ON A TIMELY BASIS!!!
I don't play chess, but I see several moves ahead!!! Clarifying what is written in haste is NOT damaging to anyone's credibility -- not in REALITY, anyway. That said, THE MAJORITY (for its own reasons, beyond my control), might well decide I don't stand in reality.
That does NOT change FACTS, however.
I surmise you've had other e-mails from Maurer. They should be more detailed than the simplistic example you've showed me.
>>> Some things between Mr. Maurer and me must remain confidential. I'm sorry, sir, but that's just the way it is.
Yeah, Kevin is a handsome youthful warrior--but don't, at any time, think with your dick.
>>> I ALWAYS think with my dick, but not kidding myself about that, I am able to appropriately control my own words and actions.
>>> TWO OTHER MATTERS:
1. I expect to hear from Mr. Maurer close to open of business tomorrow, Monday.
2. I have heard NOTHING from Martin, although he promised to contact me today. I suspect that he's been partying with friends before leaving them, and things have gotten "carried away". I'll get in touch with him tomorrow -- but probably not too early. LOL!!!
Scott
.
No comments:
Post a Comment