> One more thing, "starsforwi****ng". Do you find it at all ironic that you
took
> the liberty of posting personal information about me, and then
speculating
> (erroneously, as it turns out) about its effect on my perspective -- all
the
> while remaining anonymous yourself? It certainly tempts me to respond in
kind
> -- to elaborate fully and specifically on YOUR "closeness to the
individuals
> involved".
>
> But at this point, I think that's something you should do.
Lori,
I am sorry that I posted your relation****p to Jenny, I assumed that
everyone here knew that. I'd read so many posts to and from you
referencing that fact over the years that I figured it was no secret
here.
Also, I didn't think it was necessary for me to state who I was. I
know that you've discussed this at length with most parties on this
board. Also, I clearly remembered you posting about my "close
relation****p with Kurt" publicly to address the point that you thought
I'd have reason to protect him a few years back.
So, I never knew that my identity was at issue. I firmly believed that
you, as well as everyone else, knew who I was.
I do post with a pseudonym vs my own name for several resons. Mostly
because very often when I post, it is a concensus of thoughts. When I
posted the last message to you, I was with two of the band members
whose thoughts I was encompassing in my post. I was not about to say
this was from _____, ______, and ______. It is easier just to have a
name like "Bodeanie," that is someone from the organization speaking
but could be any one or a number of us. I think most people that read
Bodeans.com understand that BoDeanie is ‘the organization' speaking.
> "Bodeanie's" initial post, quoted by George, definitely implied that the
former
> manager instigated this legal action that you believe threatens the
band. I
> merely pointed out that the record shows that the band filed the
lawsuit.
> Counterclaims are by no means unusual or even unexpected in civil suits.
But if
> people are going to discuss this case here or try to track it, the
official
> roles of plantiff/defendant are among the few established facts that
have yet
> been made public. Why do you object to the correct labeling of the
players?
My "initial post" was never intended to imply that McCraw was bringing
the action. It was meant exactly as the situation is and as it was
taken by most people. That the band is threatened, that they have no
choice but to bring suit against McCraw so that they can move on and
continue as the BoDeans. Be very clear, it is not the legal action
that threatens the band-the legal action is the only way to remove the
problems that threaten the band.
I am confused by your question about the correct labeling of the
parties in this case. Didn't you see the first two lines of my last
post? I thought I was very clear.
THE BAND IS SUING THEIR FORMER MANAGER WHO IS BRINGING COUNTER CLAIMS
AGAINST THEM AS WELL.
>
> You certainly are making a lot of assumptions, aren't you? And yet, you
know so
> little about me. Yes, Jenny is my sister. But my professional life has
depended
> on an ability to fully comprehend the many sides to every story, and
even give
> fair voice to those with whom I disagreed. So this would not be as
difficult
> for me as you suggest.
>
> But how arrogant to presume that you can somehow read into my post far
more
> than what I wrote. You've presumed that either Jenny is indiscreet
enough to
> have volunteered information to me, or that I understand so little about
legal
> matters to have ever asked. In fact, the only reason I knew of this
lawsuit was
> because I'd found it months ago filed on CCAP, a site my former employer
> expected me to use regularly. (And, FWIW, I did not post that
information, nor
> the link, anywhere.) All I know about "the issues" in this dispute comes
from
> CCAP--and "Bodeanie's" post that George quoted, of course. It's the only
side
> to which I've been exposed.
I was not speculating about your thoughts on this court case. I knew
that you probably had very little facts, if any, regarding the case. I
was saying that over the course of the many years that you were
involved in relations with the band, it was from the perspective of
your sister (which was probably not the perspective of the band).
That you probably had far more interaction with management than with
the band over those years and it may cause you to have the feelings
that you did in your original post, referenced below.
>However, we don't know what's being sought here, nor why, nor by
whom. I'm
>therefore hesitant to go waving any flags just yet. If we knew that
their
>former manager was a hustler a la Mike Appel in the legendary
Springsteen case,
>it would be one thing. But we don't. (And I sincerely doubt, since
they'd read
>the Springsteen biography, that that's the case here--I think they
were smarter
>than the naive young Bruce!)
Did you know Mike Appel was "a hustler" prior to reading the book or
prior to Bruce finding out? Somehow do you think fans would know what
management is doing before the band would and...if everyone knew a
particular manager was "a hustler" do you think bands would continue
to work with them. Or do you suppose you made the determination that
the guy was "a hustler" after you learned all that he had done.
I did find it odd that you seem to be saying that since "they'd read
the Springsteen biography" they were somehow protected from anything
like that happening to them. It was odd since they don't recall
reading that book. Maybe you did hear an interview where the situation
was referenced and someone commented that they were familiar with or
had heard about what was going on. But I still am missing how that
would have, and in fact even if they HAD read the book, insulated them
from a situation that they were already deeply involved in.
>But how arrogant to presume that you can somehow read into my post
far more
than what I wrote.
Unfortunately, I've spent the better part of the past year and a half
sifting and wading through everything (do***ents, e-mails, etc from
the bands former offices and computers) involved in this case. So I
guess I draw my conclusions as to which perspective was shared with
you on that, instead of you telling me what was said between you and
those other people.
> But I very strongly respect the tradition of conducting trials in
courtrooms,
> on the basis of logic and evidence, rather than online or in newspapers
on the
> basis of innuendo like yours above. A lawsuit is not a popularity
contest, nor
> a football game. If people's livelihoods and reputations are indeed at
stake
> here, then fairness decrees we don't passionately, publicly wave pompons
before
> getting the facts. From BOTH sides.
On one point we actually agree.
> (This unsheeplike stance makes me less of a loyal fan in some people's
eyes,
> I'm sure. Yet I'm only using critical thinking skills urged on fans by
many
> artists whose work I respect and admire. Most people who've read
Springsteen
> biographies are familiar with these quotes: "Blind faith in your leaders
will
> get you killed" and "Trust the art, not the artist.")
Never was I looking for BoDeans fans to be sheep. I know these people
are bright, articulate, professional adults who are fully capable of
deciding right from wrong on their own.
And, I've never discussed any aspects of the case with any of them. I
asked them to pray for justice. If you think about it, Lori. Asking
people to pray for justice is about as middle of the road as I can be.
Justice is justice. So, if the other side's position was the just
position in reality, then the fans would be praying for them to
prevail.
I believe that at some point, the story will be out there. Whether it
is in book form or it just comes out in re****ts from the courthouse.
When people have the whole story, they will be able to form their own
opinions on right and wrong and on what really happened to this band.
I went public at the request of the band (Kurt, Sam, Bob, Bukka, and
Kevin) and asked their fans for sup****t. That sup****t has been
overwhelming and very inspiring.
We have been amazed at the number of inquiries from fans wanting to be
present at the trial. We have openly embraced those offers because we
want people to have the whole story-both sides of the story.
|
