Why No Dan Brown Affidavit?
I had a hard time getting to sleep last night thanks to the excitement of the scores of opportunities that Random House has provided us in their April 22, 2005 filing.
It is as significant for the many significant things it left unchallenged as it is for its mistakes and misrepresentations. The biggest challenge has been which of those to address first.
And just as we have found more and more similarities every time we go back and look at Code and my works, so do the opportunities in that filing multiple.
But after sleeping on things, I find this morning that I am at a total loss at this big issue:
Why would they simply throw in the towel on scores and scores of their claims and drop the issue of "extensive" research, just so they wouldn't have to file an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting that (a) he wrote the book and (b) he did the research claimed?
It was a slam-dunk easy way to tell us to "shove it" ... but they did not.
Why?
It is as significant for the many significant things it left unchallenged as it is for its mistakes and misrepresentations. The biggest challenge has been which of those to address first.
And just as we have found more and more similarities every time we go back and look at Code and my works, so do the opportunities in that filing multiple.
But after sleeping on things, I find this morning that I am at a total loss at this big issue:
Why would they simply throw in the towel on scores and scores of their claims and drop the issue of "extensive" research, just so they wouldn't have to file an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting that (a) he wrote the book and (b) he did the research claimed?
It was a slam-dunk easy way to tell us to "shove it" ... but they did not.
Why?
posted by Lewis Perdue at 6:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home