For the record

[WilliamPitt]

I was not threatening anyone physically in my previous posts.

The concept of writing in salt actually comes from the book Dune. "Mektub al mellah, you carve words in my flesh and write there in salt!" It felt appropriate at the time, but obviously could be construed as an actual physical threat of violence. It wasn't.

[Generic Other]

1. We know You really meant to piss on 'em

:evilgrin:

[PsN2Wind]

2. Yea Will, tone it down a bit

Go back to "You all can kiss my ass" or something else more mild.

[cornermouse]

3. I think most of us already knew that.

Who's going to take up Andy's cause? Most of us can't do what he was doing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. That's the ticket!

[joanski0]

5. Whatever, Will. I support you and

I supported Andy. I contributed to his campaign for Sec. of State of Washington and I e-mailed my Seattle relatives and asked them to vote for him when the time came. I donated to his surgery fund and I bought all of your books.

You are A-#1 in my book and I am proud of you.

[donheld]

6. I knew that Will

You would not have mentioned lawyers if you ment violence. You ment legal.

[EFerrari]

7. It sounded like you were mixing a margarita.

:eyes:

[CatWoman]

8. Fuck them, Will

Fuck'em.

[Snotcicles]

26. Yeah Will you should close with

With that said all options remain on the table. I got your back Will.

[supernova]

9. Nice to see you've recovered

somewhat.

If there is indeed a case here, (and I would have a hard time believing that there isn't), it would be the better part of valor to just get on with it and stop bellowing about it. The miscreants at whom it is aimed will know soon enough.

I'm sure you'll do a lovely job with Andy's eulogy. *sigh*

[Gemini Cat]

10. I knew that.

One would assume others would know you were not threatening anyone physically as well...if they read the post.

[Scout1071]

11. No need to clarify, but always best to CYA.

I no you meant no physical harm.

I also have full faith that you will seek justice. What they did was wrong to the core.

To paraphrase Alice Walker, "Till you do right by me, everything done to me, already been done to you."

Go get 'em Will.

[Parche]

12. Record

You have every right to be angry

Sign me up, whatever I can do to help out.




"When the last war call has sounded
And the fleet will sail no more
When a lasting peace is founded
And no enemy threatens our shore
When at last they write the story
And the reason for victory is seen
You will rise in honored glory
YOU MIGHTY SUBMARINE"

[PsN2Wind]

13. Hey Will, sorry

about the flip comment. Anyone that has been around here for awhile knows that you have strong feelings about many things and often express those feelings in strong terms. I have nothing but admiration for you and your ability to express yourself, however strongly you do so.

[liberalnurse]

14. I didn't take it like that.....

It was all just a colorful metaphor.

O8)

[fishnfla]

15. Yeah at scamdy they can say whatever they want

and you cant

and someone here can rip you,alert you, and then cry 'freedom of speech'!!

[AgadorSparticus]

16. I knew exactly what you meant. Physical violence is not your MO.

You are much deadlier with words. It is your forte and you just meant business. Your other post was fantastic. It rang loud and clear. And maybe some people are not used to that.

to add: But don't change your words to suit their sensitivities. I was most impressed with the laser like focus of intention. I'm glad I'm not those despicable @!!#@!*suckers. It looks like they've got a world of hurt heading their way. And it couldn't come too soon for me.

[tosca_veritas]

17. my support too

As a friend of Andy and a longtime admirer of your writings, including your support of Dennis Kucinich, I express my full support to you also!

Anyone with an ounce of real education in literature and with some common sense would have known that you meant no physical threat. How pathetic to even assume that but you are probably wise to clarify.

In my book, bluntness and honesty are virtues! Never apologize for honesty!

tosca

[amazona]

20. unfortunately

A jury is unlikely to be made of science fiction fans and literature professors and therefore is unlikely to appreciate the literary allusion.

I would not like to be a plaintiff in a case where the defense attorney could ask me to read aloud such a post and then admit that I had written it.

We can all say and post what we like, but if we want to be effective, we may want to make very careful choices.

When I consider legal action, I consult with an attorney first. Sometimes more than one to get a different perspective. I do not discuss the matter in advance on the internet. Why should we put ourselves in the wrong when we don't have to?

I think Will is wise to make explicit that there is no physical threat. What can it hurt?

[RetroLounge]

21. You again?

:eyes:

RL

[fishnfla]

24. *squaaack* freedom of speech! *ribbit* tit for tat!

:eyes:

[tosca_veritas]

28. notice

I'm not an expert in the legal field, but from what I gather, it is perfectly lawful and even FAIR, to put your adversary ON NOTICE! I understood that to be the case and don't think it should be regarded unwise, threatening or otherwise improper. Besides, the evidence is already public, so a public notice like this should'nt surprise or offend anyone, in light of the tragic events.

I see a notice like that as perfectly justified and even proper conduct. Only snakes operate in the dark. Those who have nothing to hide, can stand firm and tall in daylight!


definition of 'notice'


http://www.answers.com/topic/notice

[Snotcicles]

29. agree n/t

[merh]

18. Imho, only those on the defensive took your posts the

wrong way. I saw it as a promise to seek justice.
I support you in your endeavors. :thumbsup:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Damn..I'm disappointed

[BrotherBuzz]

23. I am too. I was hoping for Will to ratchet it up to...

the hanging, drawing, and quartering metaphor.....:evilgrin:

[RetroLounge]

22. Thanks for clarifying

you made a mistake: you made a literary reference, and the fucktards it was aimed at can't read that well...

RL

[Pallas180]

25. I missed that one Will. Got a link for it ? grin. n/t

:evilgrin:

[mamiesb2001]

27. Good to know "officially," though it seemed clear you meant justice,

not physical brutality. Why stoop to physical injury when a more sophisticated/appropriate justice can be served?

[WilliamPitt]

30. .

[ryan_cats]

31. If I get banned for this-so be it.

If there's one person who gave the enemy the information needed to create that B.S firestorm about Andy's fundraising, it was Mr. Pitt.
You were his friend, something I'll never get a chance to be.
I guess your sterling reputation was more important than your friendship with Andy. More promises of hell to pay, yeah, who're you going to pay to do it?


Remember this tough guy:

Edited on Tue May-17-05 01:09 PM by WilliamPitt

As you all know, I was one of the people who took point on raising money for Andy. I wrote about it for truthout two or three times, and convinced the crew at Progressive Democrats of America as well that we needed to raise a call for help.

This is what I wrote for truthout on May 3rd:

"A few weeks ago, Andy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, one of the more dangerous varieties of the disease. His doctors told him he needed a Whipple procedure to get at the tumor, and only a few hospitals in America can perform this complicated procedure with the required competence. To compound the problem, Andy shares the plight of millions of others in our disgusting for-profit health care system and does not have health insurance."

This is what I wrote on the PDA blog, in our call for help, on April 29th:

"Several weeks ago, Andy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was recently told that he must undergo what is called a Whipple Procedure. This is a very serious surgery that few hospitals in America are skilled enough to perform well, and requires significant time for recovery. Fortunately, some friends managed to get Andy a slot at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, one of the premier hospitals for this type of procedure. He is slated for the procedure in the second week of May. Unfortunately, the hospital requires a $25,000 down-payment before they assent to doing the Whipple, and requires another $25,000 once the procedure is done. They are expecting the down-payment immediately."

The basis for this started way back in February. On the 29th, I posted this truthout blog entry, which I reposted here on the first and fifteenth of every month to help raise money:

"For the last several weeks, Andy has been suffering through a bout of Hepatitis. The word came down yesterday, however, that his situation is far more serious. 'I apparently have a tumor growing around the bile duct where it passes through my pancreas," he wrote. "The tissue sample was consistent with malignancy; it could be benign but I am planning for the worst.'"

Note that here it says 'tumor.' In subsequent weeks I was told that it was pancreatic cancer requiring a Whipple. Note also that the fundraising for Andy did not start a week or so ago, but started three months ago.

I woke up today to this DU thread, in which it was reported:

"fyi: it is a tumour on the duct, not the pancreas themselves. it looks to not have spread at all. it is not pancreatic cancer as others have posted, but if it was not caught early enough, it would have certainly spread there."

"...as others have posted..."

I am one of those "others" who posted it was pancreatic cancer, requiring a Whipple. I posted it here, on truthout, and on PDA. I did so because that is what I was told was the diagnosis, repeatedly, by both Andy and others.

Now that it turns out not to be the case, I have some questions:

1. If it was not the very serious pancreatic cancer, why did the surgery need to be done at Johns Hopkins?

2. If a Whipple was not required, why was $25,000 and then $50,000 needed for this surgery? Andy could have gotten this far-less-serious procedure done back in Seattle for a hell of a lot less money.

3. Why was I personally told this was pancreatic cancer? Why was I allowed to repeat this now-inaccurate diagnosis many times without anyone correcting me?

Understand: I believe Andy has a tumor of some kind, and this requires medical attention. I do not think this entire situation was fabricated from nothing.

But the 400 people who will come into this thread with "Andy doesn't need this stress" can hold your water. Andy is apparently a hell of a lot less ill than I and others were led to believe, and I need some answers. I put my reputation, the reputation of truthout, the reputation of PDA, and the reputations of all the people who work for those organizations on the line not once, not twice, but every day for weeks on this. I have a huge, huge responsibility here, and I am not going to just let that drop.

I have a personal reason for asking these questions over and above everything else. A great and good friend of PDA, activist Damu Smith, was recently diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. There is no ambiguity about this diagnosis. But because I was told Andy had pancreatic cancer requiring a $50,000 Whipple in the best hospital on the Eastern seaboard, I talked PDA into diverting time and resources towards Andy. This wound up diverting time and resources away from Damu.

I would like some answers. No wait and see. I have spent time with Andy, worked with him, thought I knew him well enough to vouch for him in a time of crisis. I am feeling personally betrayed right now, and furthermore I have put far more than my own feelings and standing on the line here.

If you think I'm a bastard for asking, I will live with that. But if this is not explained to a degree I find satisfactory, there is going to be hell to pay.

[expatriate]

32. I'll probably get banned too

but I'm glad this was posted. I remembered it but didn't know where to find it. I remember how shocked I was when Mr. Pitt cast doubt on his friend's situation not once, but twice. Public apologies aside (and yes, they were made, but an apology is basically shutting the barn door once the horse is well and away), much misery for Andy could have been prevented by simply waiting for emotion to ebb and checking out the facts before posting a lot of bluster like this.

I understand that guilt is going on now, as well as grief, and that this is leading to some very emotional rhetoric on the part of more than on person on DU - but when someone is planning to bring legal action, this tendency to be reactive can be very counterproductive, just as it was injurious and painful when doubt was cast on Andy's situation. I would have thought that the pain Mr. Pitt inflicted on the man he considered a "brother" would have kept him from sounding off emotionally when important things are at stake. Apparently, this is not the case.

Whatever the outcome of this entire affair, if there is any legal case at all to be brought, I hope that being reactive doesn't blow the whole thing out of the water. So far, there has been enough pain caused by flying off the handle and making inflammatory statements.

Sorry if you find this offensive, Mr. Pitt, but I have to say that I've found some of your actions in this entire tragedy more than offensive. Some prudence would not be misplaced.

[RandomKoolzip]

34. I seem to remember Will apologizing as well.

Or are people not allowed to change their minds anymore?

[ryan_cats]

36. He did apologize

But he also started a sh*tstorm. I have no doubt that he regrets even thinking let alone posting what he did. But what sticks in my craw is that they were friends and Pitt was more worried about his reputation than anything else.

I'm just mad that Andy died, it's so shocking and unbelievable. I don't know what happened but this is what happened to a friend's mom:
She'd had a bypass and did well for almost a year. Then she had trouble at night and when she went to the hospital, they said it was no big deal, there was fluid accumulating and they'd take care of it in the morning. Guess what, she was dead by 9:00am. My friend's not the type to sue but it sure sounds suspicious, just like Andy. I just feel so bad for his partner, family and friends and I know everyone else does too.

[MissB]

41. ROFL!

Pitt created the shitstorm? Nice revisionist history, there.

[ryan_cats]

48. I'm not saying he started the Freaker hate storm

I'm not saying he started the Freaker hate storm, like they need a reason for that. His post did fuel the fire big time you have to admit that.

I think tensions were high because of all sh*t being flung everywhere. Right now, I'm not mad at Will, I'm just mad. Mad at never knowing Andy, mad that he died after so much positive effort on the parts of many, mad that his previous employer added to the sh*t storm trying to blame Andy for all sorts of things.

I think one thing I remember and I think I read it on the freak site is that his tumor (Bev) was trying to say he wanted to hog the spotlight, I don't know who it was about she's screwed over so many people in the media that were glad to get her story out but Andy was burying his sister at that time so her whole argument was Bullsh*T!!!

[MissB]

51. I don't see where his post fueled anything

other than answers. The assholes that caused the problems were causing the problems already - Will's post had nothing to do with it.

[theboss]

38. That seems to be Will's MO too often

I admire him as a writer, but this post falls into the same line as the Andy posts.

Will writes something inflammatory, a shit-storm develops, and then he clarifies himself much later.

He's too good a writer to keep doing this over...and over....and over....and over again.

[RandomKoolzip]

42. So there's no atonement?

Once someone errs, there's nothing he can do to rectify the situation?

I think Will has been very contrite about what happened with Andy.

Now, as far as "too often..." Please show me where he's done this before and I'll mull over the evidence, since the only time I've seen a fumble on this scale is with the Andy brou-haha. Please feel free to link me to a thread. I'll keep an open mind.

[theboss]

43. There is atonement of course

But, he let the genie out of the bottle on the Andy situation. And it couldn't be placed back inside.

[theboss]

44. As for doing this before...heck, it's happened twice in four days

He did it with the original "Vengeance is mine thread," which he has clarified twice now. First on the original thread where he asked it to be closed. And then with this post.

Then on the recent "I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but look at Tony Blair" thread, it was pointed out to him that maybe Blair had a pretty good reason for rebuffing the Tories, and he quickly backed off again.

[RandomKoolzip]

46. Oh, those...

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see someone who tries to clean up his messes as opposed to the gaggle of DUers who make drive-by posts and reamain unmoved by the damage they've created, which happens all the time.

I'm still quite willing to forgive Will for most trespasses, since I know he's doing a LOT more than me in working for the causes I care about.

I think many of us post in the heat of confusion and anger, which results in us posting things we regret later. Lord knows I've done it all the time.

[theboss]

47. Except the drive by posters aren't professional journalists

Or journalist-activists. Or whatever Will's job is.

My issue is that he is a professional and has a huge following here. Whatever he posts, generates at least 200 responses.

[King Coal]

45. That's right. Will is a stand-up guy.

Being a stand-up guy is like making sausage. You kill a few pigs and add some fat to grind out some links, and it takes guts. I don't agree with Will all the time, but I respect him for what he is. If you want to bitch about something, bitch about something real. Like posts being deleted just because the person with the delete switch gets his ass handed to him or doesn't agree with the post in question.

[MissB]

40. Oh bull

Absolute utter bullshit.

Will did not give "the enemy" information they needed to do their dirty deeds. They were already trying to slam on the brakes when he posted that.

Nice touch, trying to suggest that Mr. Pitt wasn't Andy's friend. :eyes:

[ryan_cats]

49. I never said they weren't friends

I never said they weren't friends, I said he put his reputation AHEAD of their friendship. Now, he didn't start it, those low lives at Freak repuklik and cU did. Will's post gave them ammunition to get more of those nut-jobs on their side.

Do I think Will did it maliciously, hell NO. I think he read all of the hate that was spewed and and a kernel took hold and thus he responded to which I know he was very contrite but then to post that there's going to be hell to pay and some such bullsh*t was too much.

I want hell's debt in this case paid but maybe Will is not the person to write about it since they'll immediately pull out what he wrote. I understand Will's anger, who here ISN'T angry?

I think and this is just my opinion, is that the investigation take place low key, get all the info lined up and BAM, just like Rove's sh*tstorm, here comes the Andy sh*tstorm out of nowhere full of sound and fury and signifying EVERYTHING!

It won't bring him back, but it might prevent the hate from happening again AND it shines the spotlight on his passion, voter fraud!

Hey, I'm just a n00be here but that's what I think.

I still thank DAMN, wasn't he just posting????

Reminds me of my first funeral, my friend looked like he was just sleeping. It's hard sometimes for your mind to accept the patently obvious.

[MissB]

52. I'm so glad you don't think Will did it maliciously.

:eyes:

[ryan_cats]

54. We all KNOW who did it maliciously

We all KNOW who did it maliciously! Maybe if Andy had lingered on in constant pain maybe they would have been satisfied, the bastards.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gold Metal Flake]

35. Fuck them...

...Godspeed you.

[Redstone]

37. Remember what your mama told you about counting to ten before

you say anything when you're angry?

There have been times I've wished there was a "count-to-ten" period built in to email messages and discussion-board posts.

Say, an hour or so during the day, and two hours at night.

It would take some of the spontaneity out of posting, but sure would cut down on those "oops" moments.

Redstone

[ryan_cats]

50. Good advice

I always write blistering emails to respond to something but then I don't send it. The next day, when I read what I wrote 24 hours before, I'm thinking, damn, I'm sure glad that I never sent it. It's hard to put the genie back in when you say something hurtful and I've done it too many times!

To paraphrase the Bible, it's not what goes in a man's mouth that defileth, it's what comes out!

[undeterred]

39. People who know who you are know what you meant.

But this is a public forum, and people who don't have a context for your interpreting your anger will see your words too.

You have a very powerful written voice- please be careful with it.

[sophist]

53. Anger

Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.