RH Stands By Author, AGAIN!
Anyway, D.L. Steward writes:
Now I ask you: If Frey over embellished, and represented his MS as fact, What effect will this have on RH's reputation?
First Dan Brown and now this? Makes me wonder how many other red flag 'AGAINS' exist with RH.
Like: Did they KNOW about Dan Brown's alleged plagiarism of Lew Perdue’s DoG / DVL. before publishing DVC?
The ‘mainstream media’ is all over Frey for lying. RH is offering refunds. And Oprah is backing Frey.
Whoa! Where was the ‘mainstream media’ when Lew Perdue’s solid appeal was filed in December, 2005? What? No takers? But, you can bet that RH’s response will be heralded
A company that keeps that tight a reign on policy eventually busts its seams and through disgruntled employees becomes grist for the mass mill.
What would it take for someone from RH to admit that their PR policy doesn't include admitting to or taking responsibility for 'errors'?
It does prompt more questions about placing burdens of proof upon an author. Will publishers now have to put authors through lie detector tests? ( RH’s petty cash could probably pay for a lie detector machine.)
Writers lie all the time; when the lies get published: it’s called Fiction.
Frey may have lied; but plagiarism is stealing. Does this mean that at RH it's ok to 'embellish' the facts, as long as you don't steal them?
In my opinion, RH’s rep is in the toilet. Whooosh!
RH has already offered refunds? Does this mean they realize the connection? And are trying to head off media attention?
Someone from RH Legal has seen the connection between your case, the damage potential of its resurrection and the possible inclusion of an organization of legal reform jumping on your bandwagon. (You just won't go away) tsk, tsk.
This is the 'smooth over'.