>Joe can you confirm whether or not it is a copy of the WB press
>release. If so, I think I just proved my point.
>
No, it's not.

Look...the article posts items that have not been contradicted by Claudia. The
basic series of facts as presented are, as far as I know, unchallenged.

It says that "opinions differ" on the background of the situation. No, it
doesn't give her story on the background, but it ALSO DOESN'T GIVE MINE.
Nowhere in there is there any background from this side of the desk. If one
side were presented in detail, that's one thing...but NEITHER background was
quoted in this, only the specific facts of what happened: that she didn't give
the extension (she admits this), that the deadline passed and the offer was
withdrawn (ditto).

Other folks want to fight over the why, fine...the article only had the
obligation to go into *what* happened, not get into the fannish fight over the
whys and wherefores...which, frankly, if I'm to be honest, are really none of
anybody's business...and would never have been had Claudia not started this at
conventions.


jms