From: Ferrel Christensen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: ECMAS
Date: 12:37 PM, 3/24/01
Cc: ECMASBoard, Richard Gaasenbeek <email@example.com>, "Porter, Julian"
<Julian.Porter@gowlings.com>, "Alan D. Gold" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cathy
Young1@cs.com, Mike LaBerge <email@example.com>
Bcc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <ACOOLS2@SEN.PARL.GC.CA>, <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
At 01:25 PM 3/23/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you for your note. During the past few days I have conducted extensive
>phone interviews with Adams, Bob Bouvier, Brian St. Germaine and
>Carolyn VanEe. I have also corresponded by e-mail with Mr. Bouvier and been
>the recipient of e-mail from others. It would be inaccurate, therefore, to
>suggest that I have not made good faith attempts to "hear the other side of
Since none of these people knew anything about my book on pornography, you have not made any attempts to hear the other side regarding my aspect of your pending article. (As for 's aspect, none of the other three persons named above has anything but the vaguest knowledge of 's work with the support group--and Brian and Carolyn have been out of activity in ECMAS for a long time. But I will not discuss his aspect of the matter at hand.) Moreover, you did not contact or Bob--they had to track you down --just as I have had to do--in a desperate late-hour attempt to get you to listen to the other side.
If the reports from people you did contact are correct, in fact, your mind was made up about publishing your attack on us before you even talked to THEM. None of this is good faith, much less honest journalistic investigation.
Even your agreement to delay action beyond your planned publishing date of March 24 was not about getting more evidence for making up or changing your mind; it was closer to blackmail. Blackmail to what end? Forcing me to leave the movement I have served for 15 years. (If reports from the people you have talked to are correct, you may have already slandered me, suggesting that I condone pedophilia--just as Louise has libeled me in email correspondence to certain persons.)
>In the interests of continuing that pursuit, I would be grateful if you
>would answer the following questions.
Since you have already made all necessary good-faith attempts to hear my side, there is no need to ask me any questions now--remember?
Beyond that, since our communications from this point on may have to be through lawyers, I decline to be questioned by you, and will direct any questions of mine about your conduct through counsel.
Except one. You used to be a decent person, Donna. What happened?