I am glad you weren't long-winded. I will make this simple. I should not have said you "slandered" me because I am not a lawyer, and did not even take law in college, which I guess is about the same. I publically apologize for that.
You now say "I don't think Bruce ever sided with the minty whites per se, but he sure did make fun of us for claiming that they were fakes". I will cease arguing whether you ever said otherwise. Please simply show me one or more examples of when and how I "made fun of you" for claiming they are fakes, and I will apologize for that as well. I am just trying to finally put this to rest, and I will gladly apologize for any "making fun" I may have ever done of you, once you can establish that you are not confusing something I said with something someone else said. Once that is established, I will gladly cease to ever mention you or contact you in any way, if that is your preference. Thanks. Bruce On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:01 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Mopo: > > I wrote a big, long-winded reply to this, but decided not to post it > (needless to say, it didn't make Bruce look good). Despite what Bruce seems > to think, I don't wish him ill-will. Despite some iffy things, I don't > consider him one of the 'bad guys' (Lieberman either). So, over the years, > I've with-held some information that doesn't make him look good. I have > bigger fish to fry. But, if he keeps it up, I may just post it anyways (he > didn't listen to me the last time I gave him this kind of warning, to his > grave detriment)... > > I shall simply point out my very last exchange with Bruce here on Mopo (he > must have forgotten how bad he looked). This is a quote from a Mopo email > (around 6pm on January 31st of this year, in case anyone wants to check) of > mine after Bruce had (falsely) accused me of slander (what he actually meant > was libel - which was a false accusation as well, but I hesitated to point > out his mistake, as I didn't want to make him look too stupid): > > "And, I've never, ever slandered anyone on the internet, not even Loce (I > took law in college, so I know how to frame criticisms). So, before you > accuse me (aren't false accusations slander?), why don't you post my > 'slanderous comments' here for everyone to see? That's right, you won't..." > > You will notice that Bruce disappeared after that and never posted again in > the thread. The so-called proof should have been easy to find (it wasn't > from over the course of years, almost a decade ago - what he was referring > to was recent and from one or two short threads that would have been easy to > track down). So, isn't it a bit hypocritical of him to ask me for proof > (that's not the least bit feasible to track down and doesn't exist in the > Mopo archives, on archive.org or in google's cache) about my beliefs as to > his opinion about posters I don't care about from years and years ago, when > he refused to provide proof of his public accusations of criminal activity > against me?!? > > If Dave has balls the size of small planetoids, Bruce must have balls the > size of whatever's causing dark-flow... > > Cheers, > > Bob > > PS. I don't think Bruce ever sided with the minty whites per se, but he > sure did make fun of us for claiming that they were fakes. So, if you make > fun of someone for stating an opinion, that sure as hell implies that you > disagree with said opinion... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Hershenson > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another difference > of opinion? > > > In thsi spirit of "clearing the air", I thought this would be a great time > for Bob Brooks to confirm or deny something he has posted repeatedly, namely > that I (Bruce Hershenson) at one time defended the "minty white" inserts as > genuine, and that it was only after Bob and Dan exposed them as fakes that I > changed my tune and denounced them. > > I am not calling Mr. Brooks a liar, but I have no memory of the above > events happening, and I am wondering if it is possible that Mr. Brooks is > either mis-remembering the series of events, or perhaps confusing me with > some other person. > > I ask him to produce the evidence of his repeated statements to the above > sequence of events (posts from forums, my e-mail club, private e-mails, > etc). > > If he can, I will publically apologize to him for ever having doubted him, > and for ever saying these fake inserts were real. If he can't, I don't care > if he apologizes, but ask that never again post something along these lines, > since he would have no factual proof of what he said. > > I know that I was first warned about these inserts long before Bob or Dan > ever posted about them, for I was privately contacted by two major dealers > who were offered them soon after they first appeared (were printed), and who > turned them down and who called me to warn me about these fakes. According > to Bob's memory of events, I would have had to then go on and begin > defending these after that time, which seems to me to indicate a clear > memory lapse on his part. > > I am very much hoping to settle this, because I think there are clear "bad > guys" in this hobby (who repeatedly sell fakes as real) and I think it > hampers efforts to stop them or at least slow their criminal behavior when > some of the "good guys" fight amongst themselves. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > Send a message addressed to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > The author of this message is solely > responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
