Some Advice Please

You're right about Murdoch losing his bid for NBC. Thanks for the correction. I must have gotten confused by Murdoch's News Corp obtaining The Washington Post (40 years too late for Nixon).

Comcast is also a conservative group, though. There seemed to be a lot of news hosts switching from Fox News to MSNBC, and vice versa, since that buyout, which might have added to my confusion. It's hard to tell one from the other. They all report the same things, over and over. I believe the days of ethical journalism are over. In bed with our politicians, these corporations have ended investigative journalism deeper than tabloid gossip. Our "news" is as scripted as the corporations deem them to be. IMO, of course.

This modern world has finally become every sci-fi version of Big Brother we feared, IMO. That's how a man who worked for Lockheed Martin could steer the investigation of his child's murder into the ground, IMO.

Public Radio and Broadcasting are the only venues left which offer publicity for topics like SuperDave's book. I've heard some interviews with astonishing authors revealing damning information that should shake our government to its core--and none of that ever makes it to network or even cable news. There's a reason for that--we're being spoon fed what the 1% want us to know.

I hope I'm wrong, I truly do. A lot of my cynicism comes from watching the Ramsey case for 15 years, though. John Ramsey said he wanted to change the way we get our news--the subtext was "You'll hear what we want you to hear." Whether he had anything to do with it or not, censorship has certainly become the norm and that has worked for Team Ramsey to no end.

Alas, I don't disagree with a single word of the above.

UKGuy's theory of virtual government explains why Democrats campaign as the party of the People and then govern more or less the same as Republicans. Each party just has its own version of show business.
 
Sorry I can't give you any advice. I am having the same thoughts with my own book, albeit for very different reasons. There seem to be pros and cons of each. I'm a lot of help huh? :D
 
SD-- i agree with all the "use YOUR name" arguments.

if you are that undecided though, simply flip a coin. if you don't like the call or are uncomfortable with it, your gut will tell you and then you can go with the other choice.

regardless, can't wait to read the book!! :)



norest-- i don't know what you are writing about, but i can't wait to read yours too :)
 
You should contact John Ramsey and see if he'll write a forward to your book ;)

Actually better still, Steve Thomas!
 
I don't really know, but I doubt using a pseudonym is going to protect you from powerful lawyers. At best, it would only shield you from nut cases wanting to avenge the Ramseys or others in the book. I have no idea whether such a threat even exists.

Well, despite some creep practically threatening me openly, I suspect I have little to fear in that regard. Like I said, I have all the physical protection I need.
 
You're right about Murdoch losing his bid for NBC. Thanks for the correction. I must have gotten confused by Murdoch's News Corp obtaining The Washington Post (40 years too late for Nixon).

Comcast is also a conservative group, though. There seemed to be a lot of news hosts switching from Fox News to MSNBC, and vice versa, since that buyout, which might have added to my confusion. It's hard to tell one from the other. They all report the same things, over and over. I believe the days of ethical journalism are over. In bed with our politicians, these corporations have ended investigative journalism deeper than tabloid gossip. Our "news" is as scripted as the corporations deem them to be. IMO, of course.

This modern world has finally become every sci-fi version of Big Brother we feared, IMO. That's how a man who worked for Lockheed Martin could steer the investigation of his child's murder into the ground, IMO.

Public Radio and Broadcasting are the only venues left which offer publicity for topics like SuperDave's book. I've heard some interviews with astonishing authors revealing damning information that should shake our government to its core--and none of that ever makes it to network or even cable news. There's a reason for that--we're being spoon fed what the 1% want us to know.

Sounds like fodder for the political forum. Especially now, since it's been revealed that MSNBC gets most of its material from Media Matters. (And don't I have a few thoughts on THAT!)

I hope I'm wrong, I truly do. A lot of my cynicism comes from watching the Ramsey case for 15 years, though. John Ramsey said he wanted to change the way we get our news--the subtext was "You'll hear what we want you to hear." Whether he had anything to do with it or not, censorship has certainly become the norm and that has worked for Team Ramsey to no end.

It was hardly "sub"text, KK. Anyone could see that was what he meant!
 
Well, despite some creep practically threatening me openly, I suspect I have little to fear in that regard. Like I said, I have all the physical protection I need.

Glad to hear it, Dave. Best of luck with the book!
 
Hello, everybody.

I received another e-mail from the publishing company this week. They asked me something that, up until recently, I had not even considered.

They asked me if I wanted to use a pen name or other such pseudonym. I haven't answered them, because I wanted to know what you guys thought.

As I said, until recently, I had no intention of using anything except my real name. But, as usual, some of out IDI "friends" tried to scare me (only to find out that I don't scare easily). But it wasn't just the usual "watch out for lawsuits" stuff this time. No--now, our "friends" are going far enough to hint at possible bodily or professional harm!

Specifically, they suggested (threatened) that some of the people I trash on in the book might want to "get even." I can understand that. If it were me, I'd want to get even. That's one of the reasons I wrote this book!

That doesn't bother me one bit. I've got all the protection I need if someone shows up at my door uninvited. But there was something else, too; something I hadn't given much thought. They wondered if it was foolish to attack powerful lawyers. After all, it wouldn't behoove me well to make enemies of the legal community, would it?

At first, I laughed at that assertion. After all, what could these lawyers possibly do to me? I can only assume that they meant people like the former members of the DA's office, Lin Wood and the Haddon Law Firm. Except that these people have no grounds for lawsuits because they are, respectively, political and public figures. But that's not where it ended. My "friends" did not specifically state such, but the implication was clear: these people have the ability to ruin me through other means, including under-the-table ways.

I have to admit, that one made me pause. We here at WS often talk about what bad guys AH, ML, LW and Haddon & Co are, and the Soviet-style dirty tricks they have used on behalf of the Ramseys. Well, it's true! They ARE bad guys, number one. LW would slit his own mother's throat for $10 (except that Papa beat him to it!). And number two, we know from prior incidents that they HAVE pulled dirty tricks on people who got "out of line." The DA's office tried to ruin ST publically, LW sent goons after Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein and threatened them with lawsuits if they dared speak out. And we all know what the Haddon firm tried to pull on Tom Miller. I don't doubt that these people would try anything from ruining my credit score, getting me fired from my job, right up to trying to put me in jail for a crime I didn't do.

The thing here is, what is more important: my own safety, or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, watering the tree of liberty? On the one hand, my book and message would not change if I used a different name. On the other hand, all the problems I just listed just make me WANT them to come at me, because then it would give me a chance to drag them into the light.

Folks, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The only reason these people are able to do these things is because most people don't know about them. In the old Soviet Union, people who spoke out against those in power were often threatened, fired from their jobs, made unemployable, thrown in jail, executed, or disappeared without a trace. Well, this is America. The Founders set it up so people CAN'T do those things openly. They can only get away with it when nobody speaks up.

So, what do you guys think? Should I play it safe, or should I be a total megalomaniac?



Dave, I am so proud of you. I can't find the words to describe how delighted I am for you.

WRT your real name, my biggest fears would surround the random wingnuts who have inserted themselves in this case. I suspect you have been abused by them before so they may not frighten you any more.

One thing, you can expect a Jameson rebuttal...
 
The thing is ,this is one of so many threads started on this subject(been going on for years now) yet I've seen no book....I hope you'll publish it soon Dave cause I am tired of the subject,honestly.
Another thing is....and one reason I am not that excited...the sources are online articles and already published books so there is nothing really new about the case in it,except your own theory which I already heard.Don't get me wrong please,but I already said it before,I think this(forum) is about JB not YOU,

:seeya::truce:
 
The thing is ,this is one of so many threads started on this subject(been going on for years now) yet I've seen no book....I hope you'll publish it soon Dave cause I am tired of the subject,honestly.
Another thing is....and one reason I am not that excited...the sources are online articles and already published books so there is nothing really new about the case in it,except your own theory which I already heard.Don't get me wrong please,but I already said it before,I think this(forum) is about JB not YOU,

:seeya::truce:

that's a bit harsh imo
 
SD - do you remember I asked you the question on an "Ask SD" thread quite some time ago about what name you would publish in and you said back then in your real name- I see you've come full circle:great:
 
The thing is ,this is one of so many threads started on this subject(been going on for years now) yet I've seen no book....I hope you'll publish it soon Dave cause I am tired of the subject,honestly.
Another thing is....and one reason I am not that excited...the sources are online articles and already published books so there is nothing really new about the case in it,except your own theory which I already heard.Don't get me wrong please,but I already said it before,I think this(forum) is about JB not YOU,

:seeya::truce:

Pretty sure I've read posts where Dave has talked about his conversations with people involved in the case, including the likes of Cina Wong.

You know, as opposed to online articles.

How about you wait to cast judgement 'til after we've seen the book?

As for saying "Don't get me wrong" and then you say the forum is about JonBenet not Dave - how exactly would one interpret that other than in a reasonably insulting manner? :waitasec:
 
Pretty sure I've read posts where Dave has talked about his conversations with people involved in the case, including the likes of Cina Wong.

You know, as opposed to online articles.

How about you wait to cast judgement 'til after we've seen the book?

As for saying "Don't get me wrong" and then you say the forum is about JonBenet not Dave - how exactly would one interpret that other than in a reasonably insulting manner? :waitasec:



Must say, I rather thought that one of the points of Dave's book was to identify the systemic failures that produced this awful injustice since a) the public at large is clueless about them and buy the media stance without question; and b) a guide on how to fail at justice (and, ergo, how to succeed at it) can only do criminal justice good going forward.


This case isn't about any of us or all of us: it's about JBR, and if someone is prepared to put himself in harm's way to make an important point for JBR, then I think it's a little unfair to impute some sort of narcissistic motivation to the effort.
 
Dave – great work on finishing the book. I don’t think most people understand the time, energy, and dedication it takes to complete a book. I spent 5 years working on mine, even quitting a bookkeeping position to take a job at a gas station to have more time to write (a fiction story, nothing related to JB) and after one rejection letter I started over. Since then there are many times that I have “finished”, only to start over again. I don’t care if you never make it to print; you have accomplished a lot just by following through and finishing. As a fellow writer I am very proud of you!!

Personally I don’t plan to publish in my own name, if it ever happens. I’m a very private person and I want to keep it that way. I don’t even know if I’d want my picture on the jacket.

Best of Luck!
 
<Modsnip>

Junebug99,
No need for Team Ramsey to do any investigating. The Ramsey's have been cleared John Ramsey makes this claim in his new book.

LW has to earn his keep. So he will be reviewing any new books that cite the Ramsey's, and of course any method which is legal that could prevent publication or limit the run, including ruining a credit score, will be fine with Team Ramsey.

.
 
OK. Those of you who don't agree with this thread are welcome to post but you must not be mean or sarcastic.

It will not be tolerated.

Any questions?
 
OK. Those of you who don't agree with this thread are welcome to post but you must not be mean or sarcastic.

It will not be tolerated.

Any questions?


No, Maam. Fair enough.
 
Dave, I am so proud of you. I can't find the words to describe how delighted I am for you.

WRT your real name, my biggest fears would surround the random wingnuts who have inserted themselves in this case. I suspect you have been abused by them before so they may not frighten you any more.

Not much scares me anymore, Sophie. Great to hear from you again.

One thing, you can expect a Jameson rebuttal...

I'm sure. Whether or not I CARE, is a different issue altogether. (I'll care if she violates the copyright, I can tell you!)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
4,064
Total visitors
4,239

Forum statistics

Threads
592,478
Messages
17,969,466
Members
228,781
Latest member
ChasF419
Back
Top