>Shalanna wrote:
 >From the Washington Post chat with Stouffer, archived on their site:
[all this stuff about how the poor nancy was wronged deleted]

Pamela explained:
 >http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/2002_09.html
 >Stouffer faked her evidence.  Her books do not predate Rowling's.

!!!!!!!!!    ????????   (I've been righteously indignant all this time, and 
was *wrong*?)

But the Washington Post bought her entire line of 
argument?!?!    Or at least they *seemed* to in the articles I have 
(from 2001, when another list bounced them around.)

I knew I couldn't trust the press.  But someone had sent me all that 
information earlier, and I'd gotten really upbacked about it and had it 
stored on my disk.

Public retraction and apology:  I really got it wrong that time.  Teresa 
would naturally have it right, since that's her business.  Though I never 
seem to have run across the explanation before.  I mean, wow.  What I can't 
believe is that the Post (even on another Google search) didn't ever write 
a follow-up that explained this.

  *If* that had really happened the way she said . . . 
it wouldn't have been very fair at all.  And I think that's still my position.

However, it sounds like she's like the cute guy you had a crush on in 
seventh grade science class who steals your notebook in which you and your 
best friend have been writing notes back and forth all year with nature and 
weather observations, copies out the high points, trashes it, and then goes 
and turns his stuff in to the teacher as his own diary of 
observations.  And they BELIEVE Jeff when he says that it's his stuff, and 
since he threw away your spiral and you and your friend really didn't think 
to photocopy your notes (and in 1975, copiers were not ubiquitous, as they 
are now!), you and your friend [read: me and Linda] are basically out of 
luck and get marked down a grade in science--and Linda plans to major in 
science--until your friend's dad, a large and normally jovial guy, goes 
into the principal's office and points out the possibility that his 
daughter didn't lie and that he'd SEEN the notes in question many a time as 
we studied science. . . .)  Um, that turned into the usual personalized 
rant, but how embarrassing that I was out there flying the flag of the 
wronged when she was a poser.  Sheesh.  

 >So Stouffer faked up some books and sued Rowling, and got
 >countersued, and I really do not see a miscarriage of justice here.

Well, at least I got a dialogue going.  

Anyhow . . . sorry about that.  I was so totally convinced by the chat 
(it's here on the disk somewhere) and the various webpages.  But I don't 
know why I assumed that she had a good case.  "You can't believe everything 
you read in the newspapers," Grandpa tried to teach me. . . .

digging a hole next to the tiger lilies,
Shal
The only thing that flies faster than an F-16 is your guardian angel
- - - -
Nine out of ten doctors recommend reading my books.  The tenth is a quack.
Shalanna Collins                                          shalanna{at}attbi.com
_Dulcinea: or Wizardry A-Flute_ by Shalanna Collins (e-mail me for excerpt)
ISBN 0-7388-5388-7 trade paperback  http://home.attbi.com/~shalanna/>

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha