Hey Warren!
There are those out there warning me against taking you on. Here are some of their comments:
"Richard, seriously consider whether you want to pick a fight with Kinsella. He's highly intelligent and he fights to win (as you-know-who at ATC has discovered). Don't expect to walk away unscathed if you keep whacking at this particular hornet's nest.(Not saying that you shouldn't, just making sure you know what kind of trouble you're renting.)..."
...Not saying you should, it's just that I've seen the kind of damage he can inflict in a fight, and one shouldn't engage in those fights casually. It's one of those 'playing with fire' things."
And
"Richard, I am concerned for you my friend. I am NOT a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt: I think a judge would look at your posts and overlook the fineprint. The question he will have in mind is, did you intend to defame the man. It's a fine line between satire, and defamation. To stay clearly on the side of satire, which is appropriate given the redolent PoS we aretalking about, I encourage you to refrain from using his proper name, and image (which I e-mailed you about earlier).
If he decides to sue, which he can do if he chooses,the story will be a big one, because MSM is VERYscared of blogging right now, and they will not side with you. They will make a very big deal of it, citing you as an example. It will set blogging back. For obvious reasons, that would be very bad news indeed.
I know where you are coming from, I think (we agree on many things out there on the blogsphere, but you may not realize it) so I sent you this not to discourage you, but rather keep you whole for the good fight.
Perhaps you already have legal advice that obviates my words, and if I am needlessly worried, kindly ignore. I certainly admire your courage, your conviction, and your intellect.
I truly suggest torquing it back some, and if you want to brainstorm how to do so with dignity, by all meansfeel free to email me on it."
My basic reply is as follows:
There are those that say that since you put the screws to PM squared that you should be left alone. To them I reply thus:
In 1997 Kinsella made 20 complaints to the BC press council in regards to errors/problems with op/ed pieces during his 1997 political bid. 2 were upheld. That gives me what? A 90% chance at success? I like those odds...
"Richard, seriously consider whether you want to pick a fight with Kinsella. He's highly intelligent and he fights to win (as you-know-who at ATC has discovered). Don't expect to walk away unscathed if you keep whacking at this particular hornet's nest.(Not saying that you shouldn't, just making sure you know what kind of trouble you're renting.)..."
...Not saying you should, it's just that I've seen the kind of damage he can inflict in a fight, and one shouldn't engage in those fights casually. It's one of those 'playing with fire' things."
And
"Richard, I am concerned for you my friend. I am NOT a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt: I think a judge would look at your posts and overlook the fineprint. The question he will have in mind is, did you intend to defame the man. It's a fine line between satire, and defamation. To stay clearly on the side of satire, which is appropriate given the redolent PoS we aretalking about, I encourage you to refrain from using his proper name, and image (which I e-mailed you about earlier).
If he decides to sue, which he can do if he chooses,the story will be a big one, because MSM is VERYscared of blogging right now, and they will not side with you. They will make a very big deal of it, citing you as an example. It will set blogging back. For obvious reasons, that would be very bad news indeed.
I know where you are coming from, I think (we agree on many things out there on the blogsphere, but you may not realize it) so I sent you this not to discourage you, but rather keep you whole for the good fight.
Perhaps you already have legal advice that obviates my words, and if I am needlessly worried, kindly ignore. I certainly admire your courage, your conviction, and your intellect.
I truly suggest torquing it back some, and if you want to brainstorm how to do so with dignity, by all meansfeel free to email me on it."
My basic reply is as follows:
- "As far as getting into a tangle goes: I would entertain leaving Kinsella alone if he'd ease up on the other bloggers. I see no reason for him to be worried about the information they provide if he's innocent. What I've seen so far is nothing but play-ground bully tactics in response to said information which leads one to think there may be something Kinsella want's to hide.
- I won't say that I'm immune to his tactics but I think I'm in a better position than others. I'm self employed so he can't get to me through my employer. He can't get to me through my clients as I have made a conscious decision to work only with those leaning to the political right. I'd hate to say it but they seem to have more integrity. He can't get to me through my family as my wife supports my efforts. Frankly she's ticked off as well. As far as I can tell the only way he can get to me is if I get careless on what I post about him. The sheep posting should have sent a clear message that I have an understanding of the rules. As long as I stay on my toes I should be alright. Besides, I've got secret weapons. Time will tell.
- It would be really interesting to see what the MSM says. I know that it would get big publicity in the US. The media up here would have to address it by default because of the "free speech" issues. They would be forced to side with the bloggers for those same reasons. They can't publicly denounce the use of free speech without showing themselves as extremely biased. They have enough trouble with those types of alligations as it is."
There are those that say that since you put the screws to PM squared that you should be left alone. To them I reply thus:
- "The whole problem here is reminiscent of the Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo thing. Look at it like this: Because one of the killers testified on the other does that make the first killer any less guilty? The general mindset would cut killer #1 some slack because of the testimony. We're seeing that mindset right now in the case of Kinsella. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying in the least that Kinsella would have anything to do with killing nor am I implying that he has been proven of any wrongdoing. But the question has to be asked. If the information is accurate and Kinsella is somehow involved in this mess, which I have yet to see unequivocal proof of, one has to beg the question as to whether he would be any less guilty than the people he's accusing. The only way we're going to find out is with thorough scrutiny. Kinsella is doing everything in his limited power to avoid said scrutiny"
In 1997 Kinsella made 20 complaints to the BC press council in regards to errors/problems with op/ed pieces during his 1997 political bid. 2 were upheld. That gives me what? A 90% chance at success? I like those odds...
posted by Richard at 04:10
<< Home