ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4692
Mar 22 11 3:10 PM
droid714 wrote: Matthew McCallum wrote: The brevity of Twitter posts makes it difficult to discern the core of the objection. Is it merely dismay over a seeming lack of courtesy? Or regret at not being able to participate in the retrospective? Or concern at an entity profiting off the work of a beloved family member without fair compensation? Perhaps all three?You don't refer to someone as a "crook" because they fail to make a courtesy call; you call them "crooks" if you perceive that they have stolen something. The only conclusion that I can make, while admittedly not knowing the principals involved or the facts of the situation, is that Stephanie feels that she and or her family should have profited from this book. Again I want to point out that I don't know what the laws are concerning this matter, but considering how litigious society has become, I have to assume that the authors have made sure to follow all pertinent laws and regulations before they published their book. If they did, then I truly don't understand the outrage.
Matthew McCallum wrote: The brevity of Twitter posts makes it difficult to discern the core of the objection. Is it merely dismay over a seeming lack of courtesy? Or regret at not being able to participate in the retrospective? Or concern at an entity profiting off the work of a beloved family member without fair compensation? Perhaps all three?
Share This