- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,060
- Reaction score
- 2,660
Interesting. The response might just cause Ms Rowlings' attorneys to kick this up a notch. Best stock up on popcorn.
And pass some this way.
Interesting. The response might just cause Ms Rowlings' attorneys to kick this up a notch. Best stock up on popcorn.
PA’s promotion creates the exact opposite impression, implying that the opportunity to deliver books to her is but happenstance. PA created this impression by mentioning that it is already going to be in your client’s home town for the Edinburgh Book Festival at the same time it plans to deliver the books. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the only information revealed about your client, i.e. her Edinburgh residence, is in the public domain. By revealing only well known information about your client that is generally available to the public, PA specifically contradicted the impression that it has some direct line of access to your client.
Let's just say that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek.
I just finished the letter. Isn't Vic the one suing Sinthyia Darkness, and not "another PA rep"? Who determines what a "credible" watchdog group is?
Wow, and to think I nearly rejected the offer of a refill on
Keep posting those links. I'm LMAO here.
I hope these are the words that sink the fargin bastages.PA created this impression..
Stacia, the writer of the original article that shot 'round the world made that statement - it's not a quote from Rowling's reps.Genuine curiosity: Is claiming someone made a statement that they didn't make actually libelous? (i.e. is Cretella's statement that JKR's rep said PA is accused of being a scam, libel against JKR's rep? Since it's demonstrably & provably untrue, and is said in such a way as to discredit JKR's rep.)