Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:07:15 -0500 
To: Editor Report  
From: XXXXXXXXXX> | Block Address | Add to Address Book 
Subject: Re: posting about me 
         
 


FYI: Appreciate the opportunity to rebutt, but it should have come 
before
you put that defamatory posting on your page -- not months afterward. 
Sorry
, but I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag now: It's too late to claim
opportunity to rebut on what's already been posted publically without 
it.
I am -- and always have been -- a champion of the free and balanced
exchange of ideas, no matter how it ruffles feathers. This, however, is
irresponsible and now damaging -- which it wouldn't have been if I'd 
been
given equal opportunity coincidental with what you've had on you public
site for some time.
In other words, remove that ridiculous posting immediately!
Otherwise, stay tuned.
XXXX XXXXX

At 12:20 PM 8/16/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Well, since we don't know you or the writer who posted
>about you, we can't be sure what is defamation or not.
>As we said previously, you are more than welcome to
>post a rebuttal. We would also welcome rebuttals from
>other writers working for you.
>
>As for the number of hits our site gets, we don't
>really measure that, but there is a counter on the
>bottom of the page that might give you some
>indication. We are relatively new.
>
>Please let us know if we can be of more help.
>
>ER
XXX XXXXX wrote:
>> I question your apparent willingness to ignore clear
>> defamation and your
>> own attendant exposure, but I will think about this
>> and get back to you in
>> one formal way or another. Meanwhile, my question
>> still stands: How many
>> hits does your site get per (day? month? year?)
>>XXX XXXX
>> 
>> At 10:07 AM 8/16/01 -0700, you wrote:
>> >Mr. XXX,
>> >
>> >We appreciate the feedback. However, we are trying
>> to
>> >maintain as open a dialogue as possible, and we
>> want
>> >writers AND editors to be able to express what they
>> >perceive. The post to which you refer is just one
>> >person's assessment. So, what I would suggest is
>> that
>> >you send us something to refute the
>> writer--something
>> >you would let us post on the site, just below the
>> >writer's feedback. We'll post it as soon as
>> possible.
>> >
>> >You could also have your other writers refute this
>> >particular person, and we would be more than happy
>> to
>> >post their feedback as well.
>> >
>> >Hope this helps, and we look forward to hearing
>> from
>> >you.
>> >
>> >ER
>> >
>> >XXXXXXX  XXXX wrote:
>> >> I'd like to emphasize that I do NOT want this
>> email
>> >> posted on your The
>> >> Editor Report BBS, where I've found a posting
>> about
>> >> me that is wholly
>> >> ridiculous, defamatory, and expresses an opinion
>> >> that could only have
>> >> come from one writer that I've ever worked with.
>> >> This writer was dropped
>> >> from the Las Vegas Weekly writer roster by 100%
>> >> concensus of the staff
>> >> after we all endured more than two months of
>> boorish
>> >> incompetence on the
>> >> writer's part. Deadlines were chronically missed,
>> >> and the writer had the
>> >> habit of writing laughably word-count-padded
>> stories
>> >> that bore little or
>> >> no resemblance to what was described when the
>> story
>> >> was pitched. We
>> >> finally started checking in with this writer a
>> >> couple of days before
>> >> deadline to make sure we would get what we were
>> >> pitched on time. After a
>> >> few no-callbacks, followed by one entirely empty
>> >> story -- planned for 1
>> >> 15,00-word hole -- that came in at the 11th hour
>> and
>> >> 59th minute of
>> >> deadline, we -- and, again, this was a concensus
>> >> edit staff decision --
>> >> decided to stop working with this hack.
>> >> I defy you to find another writer I've worked
>> with
>> >> who shares this
>> >> bottom-feeder's opinions.
>> >> 
>> >> The reason I'm writing: How many hits does your
>> site
>> >> get? At this point,
>> >> I'm not inclined to dignify such blatant
>> defamation
>> >> with any response
>> >> whatsoever, but, then again, I do not
>> particularly
>> >> like seeing it on a
>> >> site that would be there for friends and
>> colleagues
>> >> to see, for example,
>> >> after a simple google search for my name.
>> >> 
>> >> I also prefer not to work in the way the writer
>> in
>> >> question works --
>> >> that is, anonymous cheap shots. THAT IS WHY,
>> AGAIN,
>> >> I DO NOT WISH FOR
>> >> THIS EMAIL TO BE POSTED ON YOUR SITE.
>> >> 
>> >> I would, however, appreciate some response.
>> >> 
>> >> XXX XXXX

    Source: geocities.com/editorreport