I, and everyone else involved is, well aware of what our options are for the AMP case. I have already clearly stated in my blog posts, had you bothered to read them, that this was the case. I do not need multiple postings of the SAME COMMENT to understand what my rights and options are, thank you very much.
Probably a bit of a nasty surprise to find out my blog is moderated, yes? But, since you seem intent on posting the SAME COMMENT even more, I'm terribly afraid I have marked you as spam.
To the rest of the world:
We're going to try this one more time. I WILL NOT DISCUSS legal issues on this blog. I WILL NOT COMMENT FURTHER on AMP and the case around them. I WILL NOT PERMIT anyone to use this blog as the weapon for their own personal vendetta.
I trust I have made myself clear?
We now return you to your regular NON-AMP status. Have a very nice day.
Updates 10/28/2011 -- To the commenter who doesn't want to take the advice above:
The owner of AMP is not MY Sandra Hicks, so quit acting like I'm trying to protect her. I'm going to try again and use very small words so you can understand this--
1. I am the one who blew this story wide open.
2. I already TOLD you politely that I won't discuss legal actions being taken on a public blog. So let me be more blunt--it's none of your damn business what we are doing legally and we're not obligated to tell you or anyone else what those actions are. Why is that? BECAUSE WE DON"T WANT AMP TO KNOW, you moron.
3. Chances are good that if I didn't publish your spamming comments on my blog last week, I wasn't going to publish the new one--you know, the one where you insulted me and acted like I was protecting this publisher?
4. If you keep broadcasting your legal intentions to AMP in public, then their attorneys will be prepared for you.
5. There are multiple uses of your energy that are more effective than trying to piss ME off.
Have a nice day.
Updates 10/28/2011 -- To the commenter who doesn't want to take the advice above:
The owner of AMP is not MY Sandra Hicks, so quit acting like I'm trying to protect her. I'm going to try again and use very small words so you can understand this--
1. I am the one who blew this story wide open.
2. I already TOLD you politely that I won't discuss legal actions being taken on a public blog. So let me be more blunt--it's none of your damn business what we are doing legally and we're not obligated to tell you or anyone else what those actions are. Why is that? BECAUSE WE DON"T WANT AMP TO KNOW, you moron.
3. Chances are good that if I didn't publish your spamming comments on my blog last week, I wasn't going to publish the new one--you know, the one where you insulted me and acted like I was protecting this publisher?
4. If you keep broadcasting your legal intentions to AMP in public, then their attorneys will be prepared for you.
5. There are multiple uses of your energy that are more effective than trying to piss ME off.
Have a nice day.
2 comments:
But...but...but WHY can't you sic a fire-breathing dragon on them and offer up half-rotten avocados to the goddess of blistering legal attacks? I don't understand why you won't take that advice, I know someone who knew someone who did that over the Enron case....
*hee hee* Sorry, couldn't resist! :)
Wow. I had no idea any of this was going on. I first saw a tweet about it by SFWA today. I'm sorry. I hope everything works out for all involved.
Post a Comment