topic of the month

 
   
back

Parade-Ground

 
by Apostrophe
   
  posted on abf 2002-05-19
re: "Pirates on Parade"
     

Dennis (UGH)" wrote in message news:[email protected]
> In his article he steps over the line of propriety by publishing
> someone's address. That violates basic internet protocol, and
> he's been around long enough to know it, or he is also an idiot.


Ah never mind my address. My address has always been at the lab for anyone to see, so it's no big deal that he uses it to fill space in his article. This whole thing is actually amusing. Like I told a friend of mine, I have a hard time defining what the most laughable about this article is: the feeling of unsure guilt that is throughout the guy's writing, the fact that he bundled me with Hoefler and Spiekermann and Yan and Treacy and Vanderlans under the title "Pirates on Parade", or the fact that what I've been telling retail foundries for over 5 years is now credited to Spiekermann as his own "radical idea".

Six weeks ago, Clive Bruton wanted an interview with me. I told him to send me a list of questions. He said I'd have to answer his questions as he sends them one at a time via email. I told him that I didn't have the time or inclination to go through that routine, and that was that. He insisted, saying that this would be my chance to give the world my side of the story, and I replied by saying that my side of the story was already published at the lab where more than 10,000 people had already read it. He sent a few more emails trying to convince me that an interview would be beneficial to me, but he was starting to sound like a tabloid reporter, which annoyed me and I told him he'll have to go with the "no comment" thing. That was about 6 weeks ago, and supposedly at the time the rest of the article was almost done. 6 weeks later we see this? How disappointing... Clive would have passed gas better than this boring thing.

He starts off with a lie, and doesn't do much better after that. He says that the details of the settlement are not public, while they certainly are. He says that the only possibly reason for him to write a one-sided article must be me refusing to "take part in assembling" it, without explaining how that logic works (usually people give a complete common sense theorem before reaching an equation). He says "11 plaintiffs" while everyone knows by now it was seven plaintiffs. He says the statutory damages the plaintiffs asked for were 6 million dollars, while in fact they asked for over 20 million. He says that this figure can be a starting measure of the rights infringed, while in reality all they did was ask for the maximum they could ask for under the copyright law. He says that I claimed to be an industry insider, while in fact I kept telling people that there is no industry. He says that the court document shows that I had to pay $1000, while in fact that $1000 was ruled in conjunction with the rest of the case's motions, which means I paid nothing to the plaintiffs, and nothing to the courts.

It's really hard to discern anything among all the lies and gleeful slander there. There's the long and winding bit about anonymity and my name. About 3 pages out of 5, taking about anonymity and jamming the word Nader in every possible sentence. Sure I am Fred Nader. Big $%^[email protected]# deal!! Did Clive, or anyone, really think that I would believe my name would remain secret throughout the whole thing, or that I was keeping my name from the public so that I can "delight in anonymity". What a twisted concept. I had never kept my name secret from my friends. Ask the lab's designers, most of the lab's fans, or even some of the people who emailed [email protected]b.com pretending to be all charmed with the fonts. My name was never a big deal. The thing about MAKING it a big deal was a simple legal strategy of giving them an apparition that my anonymity was important to me. It was bait. Of course I knew there was a court document online, and of course I knew that someone would talk to Clive. And of course they played right into my hands there. They focused on my name as being what's important to me in this case, since they clearly saw that they would get nowhere in the lawsuit itself without making some major compromises that they didn't want to make and taking some major risks that they didn't want to take, and so they figured that even if they accepted my settlement for $0, they'd still have my holy grail (my name) to wave in public through media puppets like Bruton.

See, Clive knew all this, but of course he wouldn't admit it. Instead he elects to write long speculations on why I called myself Apostrophe, and in the end he makes up stories. I know for a fact that certain documents were passed on to Clive, but I guess whoever gave him those documents must have forgotten to give him the list of OEM fonts that I designed, and which the plaintiffs asked for during discoveries.... (oh, one day I'm going to have to tell you a very amusing story about my discoveries!!)... So, the point here is that Clive was always privy to information about the case, but now he's making it sound like he invented gunpowder with this piece of "investigative journalism". Another thing Clive didn't say is why people who weren't involved in the lawsuit would be interested in knowing my name in the first place. He said they would certainly be interested, but never said why. Well, unless you consider it a good reason that he is telling people that I wouldn't be a good person to hire. Unbelievable what levels people can sink to...

'nough ranting. I just am really disappointed in the fact that Clive's 6 week pregnancy ended with this stillborn child. Apostrophe/Nader will go have breakfast now. Someone call Clive and tell him to bring a camera. ' --

www.apostrophiclab.com