January 12th, 2007
Deception or Fair Play?
Like many people, I’ve taken quite a shine to Ken Samson’s blog, BiblioMarket for well-written postings and a fairly well balanced approach to writing (doesn’t fall into “broken record” mode on one topic for extended periods) .
But I have to admit the posting of commentary from Brian Riley that discusses Gallaudet BOT member William Graham’s resignation bothered me.
In it, Mr. Riley makes no effort to hide the fact that he uses two names: Brian Riley for anything related to Gallaudet and Adrian Apollo for everything else.
“In July of last year, 2006, I (Brian Riley) approached Bill Graham using my current everyday name, Adrian Apollo. I changed my name in 1999 when I decided to pursue a possible career as a writer. I liked my pen name, so I made it my everyday name.
Since Bill Graham knew me only by my current name, Adrian, and not by the name under which I attended Gallaudet (and also the the name I was using as a protester) he did not know I was a protester. I feel this is completely fair, because it was Jordan and certain members of the Board who were deceiving us. We had a right to investigate them and that is exactly what I did.”
If you’ve read my postings on this blog and my comments on other blogs, you will see that like many people in the deaf community, my views on the protest evolved and were never in lockstep with what others have posted in the blog-o-sphere so I’m sure this influences how I read the commentary.
First of all, I simply have to say this: Any one who didn’t see the name “Adrian Apollo” and raise an eyebrow or think of Rocky must be comatose, especially with the new Rocky Balboa movie out.
Seriously, there is something that bothers me here about Mr. Riley’s tactics. I doubt they’re illegal but I certainly look at it as taking the low road, possibly unethical. Never mind that Mr. Riley’s conclusions do not disparage Mr. Graham’s positions or actions during the protest.
Mr. Graham spoke to Mr. Riley thinking he was talking to a writer who, presumably, was writing a historical (read: fair and balanced) account of the Gallaudet protests. I seriously doubt he would’ve done that if he had known what Mr. Riley’s true identity and intentions were.
I’m also bothered by Mr. Riley’s statement:
“I tried my best to win Bill Graham’s confidence and to convince him to allow me to fly to the Board meeting with him at the end of July. I even bought tickets to join him on his flights before he gave his approval (because I worried that the flights would fill up) and I even joined my reservation at the Dulles Hyatt to his, asking for adjoining rooms. Bill thought I was interested in writing about his life. It wasn’t a lie. I was interested, and I’m still interested. I am writing a book about the Gallaudet protest.”
[paragraph redacted]
What’s disturbing is that there is a marked lack of discussion in the blogs with regards to Mr. Riley’s comments. Mr. Riley clearly admits Mr. Graham had no ill-intentions or role in the fiasco at Gallaudet and places the blame, for right or wrong, at Dr. Jordan’s doortstep.
Is this a case where the ends justify the means? I, for one, don’t think so. I’d like to believe the results of the Gallaudet protests were achieved by using straightforward civil disobedience and democratic discussion. These are the cornerstones of protest in America today, even when the other side plays dirty. Martin Luther King, Jr and the Civil Rights movement, anyone?
The low road that Mr. Riley has pursued such as trickery and deception should have both sides shaking in their heads with disgust. I hope other v/bloggers join in renouncing these practices.
UPDATE: See this entry for a final note:Â LINK
January 12th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Come on!
This is incredibly unfair. You are libeling me, whereas I am praising Bill Graham!
I thought he was a great guy and that Jordan took advantage of him. I made that very clear. I think he is a fine person.
You need to remove the libelous comments please. Don’t be a hypocrite.
BR
January 12th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Mr. Riley;
You will notice that I said that you did not disparage Mr. Graham.
I am, however, calling into question ~your~ decision to use an alias and conceal the nature of your relationship to Gallaudet and the protesters.
I am simply dissecting your commentary and making it clear what my personal opinions are of your actions. This is not libel, it is simply public comment upon commentary that you have already published @ BiblioMarket.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Adrian is the name on my driver’s license and Social Security card.
Please remove the libelous comment. You are breaking the law by libeling me.
If you accuse someone of breaking the law, and they did *not* break the law, then you are committing libel.
I did *not* break the law. OK?
Remove the libel.
Thank you.
BR
January 12th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I am talking about the paragraph in the post that begins:
“Let me take a look at what Mr. Webster…” etc.
THAT paragraph is libel! Please remove that whole paragraph immediately.
YOU are breaking the law by libeling me.
BR
January 12th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
It is not libel, Riley. You did switch to the other name as one of your antics to bait Bill Graham, right?
The whole stuff makes me cringe, really.
I don’t like nor approve this tactic at all.
Cheers,
R-
January 12th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Mr. Riley,
I’ll leave the comments up. You have made it clear that you did not intend to disclose your name (as known to Gallaudet) nor your relationship with the protests at Gallaudet to Mr. Graham. Further, you wanted to stay close to Mr. Graham during the final BOT meeting. I believe these actions would qualify as “pursuing quarry and prey stealthily”.
I made it clear in my posting that I don’t think you did anything illegal but that I think your actions were, at worst, unethical.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I am a writer. Just like any journalist who uses tactics. Look at Susan Kinzie in the Washington Post. She is disclosing the contents of private e-mail that Jordan sent to Board members.
Look at Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes. The fact is that sometimes you have to use tactics to discover the truth and fight corruption.
Let’s face it. Jordan was corrupt. Why point the finger at me? I helped the protest.
I spent untold dollars and suffered a lot of anxiety for the protest. You are not being fair to me at all.
I never said that deaf people were telling me every move to make, but for the general direction of my activies I had deaf advisers. Some of my plans were vetoed in advance. In those situations, I obeyed the veto and changed my plans.
Come on, Ricky. We’re on the same side.
BR
January 12th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
i have to agree with Neil on this, Brian. When i first read your commentary, i raised my eyebrows in disbelief. I was surprised you’d go to such lengths to talk with Graham and not tell him who you were. I’ve gotten to know you a bit over the past few months, and while i do appreciate some of the things you’ve done in the name of removing Fernandes, there have been times i felt you were going too far. This is one of those times. When i posted your commentary on BiblioMarket, i wanted to see how the community would tune in to your disclosure, because i wanted to see if i was the only one who felt uncomfortable with the strategy you used. Clearly i was not the only one, but… it’s also clear that some of the readers seem not to have been bothered by it. I guess it’s much like the real world out there - there’s multiple layers of political activism that we each choose for ourselves. Some could not care less what happens in Washington, and others live only for the down & nasty politics. Most of us are in-between. I guess what Neil is feeling is that you’ve gone too extreme in some instances. / Ken @ BiblioMarket
January 12th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Neil,
I discussed possibly flying with Bill in advance. What do you want me to do, throw $2000 flight tickets down the drain?
Obviously, he would find out that I was there when he checked in and found my name on the reservation with his. That’s exactly what he did. When he checked in, he found out I was there and that I asked for adjoining rooms.
I didn’t do anything wrong at all.
BR
January 13th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Riley:
By deceiving Graham that you’re Adrian Apollo, not Brian Riley in order to gather some inside information so that you can use it for the other side’s benefits is … just tacky.
No, it is not tacky. It is creepy.
R-
January 13th, 2007 at 1:46 am
At first, I hadn’t thought about how it may be interpreted about Riley’s actions. It took me some time before I realized, “if it was a woman, everyone would decry that he was stalking her, ensuring that he was trying to keep an eye on her by having tickets on the same flight and even asking for adjoining rooms. Ohhh, wait a minute, it’s a guy, not a woman.” So in some ways, I can see how it can be perceived as stalking, especially if there is misleading of identification. On the other hand, some reporters do dirty work to get their news, I acknowledge. But I don’t THINK (I hope) that they would do the very actions spoken in the commentary.
For that $2000 flight tickets, could have used it for other trips like…London, Fiji, Hawaii.. instead of throwing in the drain.
Well, if you really want to know how I’d feel if someone wanted to know about my life, I’d ask for his credentials, ask for his purposes and require a release of information. If I don’t get those, I would get suspicious and not work with that person. Although I acknowledge that may mean I “appear” to hide something, so be it.
That’s my opinion.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Ricky,
Adrian is my everyday name! It’s on my driver’s license and Social Security card. That’s who I am.
Bill had every opportunity to ask me whatever he wanted to ask, or verify who I was.
Everything was fine. I’m confident that someday in a few years that Bill will be friendly with me again. After the dust has settled and he sees that everything turned out for the best.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Mr. Riley;
Your comparisons to Mike Wallace and Susan Kinzie are false ones. Mr. Wallace and Ms. Kinzie are legitimate and, more importantly, RECOGNIZED members of the media. I would say you’re not.
Additionally, there is a difference between the “dirty tricks” that the mass media plays to get stories versus what you admitted to in Bibliomarket. In those cases, they are trying to get people who are, well, BAD. The Dateline series targets pedophiles, the 20/20 segments targeted people who stole money or tried to con older folks and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, these media segments usually have official cooperation with police and other investigative authorities so they have gone through official channels. I don’t see that happening here either.
What you wrote about was totally the opposite: Mr. Graham was not suspected of any crimes. You led this gentleman to believe that he was talking to a disinterested person named Adrian Apollo about the Gallaudet protests.
Why would he ask to verify your information? I’m not usually in the business of asking people to verify their identities when I meet them.
Finally, regarding your name: why would you write this:
“The address tag on my backpack was sticking right up in his face, and he could have seen my name there and known it was me!”
I presume this “name” on your backpack was “Brian Riley”. If you say “Adrian Apollo” is on your driver’s license and your SSN, why would the name on your backpack be different?
January 13th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Ridor, it’s official: hell has frozen over. I never thought the day would come when I’d agree with anything you say, but you got it right — Brian Riley aka Adrian Apollo is a very creepy guy! eeww.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Neil,
This is why it is important that people should contact each other *privately* at first to get the whole story! You don’t really know what you are talking about. You only know bits and pieces of the story.
You don’t know whether I am a legitimate writer or not. Your are going ahead with your criticism without really knowing who I am and without knowing the facts of what happened when I contacted Bill Graham and asked to interview him.
The name on my backpack was Adrian Apollo.
Now please, write me privately to get the whole story, OK?
This is not fair for you to criticize me without really knowing my background and without understanding the full story.
My e-mail is brian.riley(at)yahoo.com
Please write me.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Ken and Neil, you aren’t alone. I found the whole charade incredibly distasteful and unethical. Brian, you contributed to the protest, and I give you credit for that. Absolutely! I also appreciate your speaking out in support of Graham. This was information we needed. However, I do not approve of these tactics.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Jen,
The person who was perpetrating a charade was Jordan. What I did was completely fair compared to what Jordan was doing to the entire deaf community and and the American people.
Think of the incredible oppression that Jordan put on everyone that caused the Gallaudet student protesters to fight so hard. People do not understand how important this protest was.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Mr. Riley/Mr. Apollo, I think the fact that you have a number of people here *not* named Neil all agreeing that what you did was, at best, distasteful, should clue you into why your protestations aren’t working.
Neil isn’t libeling you– he’s commenting on your behavior (which speaks for itself, I think). No one here has said what you’ve done is illegal (so far!); just about everyone agrees it’s unethical.
Even if you were writing a book and everything was aboveboard, misrepresenting who you are isn’t the best way to start out. If I had someone writing a book that included me and I found out they were misrepresenting themselves, I’d disengage myself from them so fast it’d make your head spin.
However, this doesn’t seem like it’s the case here. You are someone who was involved with the recent protests, who was banned from campus, and who has been very vocal in a number of forums. To then glom onto a public figure who was involved in the protest at a certain level and misrepresent yourself is deceptive. I really don’t see how you can try to paint it any other way.
A journalist is a writer, but not all writers are journalists. I don’t consider you a journalist, although you may be a writer. I agree with Neil- to compare yourself to Wallace, Kinzie, et al is disingenuous.
The issue here isn’t the protest or your participation, so trying to shift the discussion here to what you did/didn’t do, Jordan’s public actions, etc., isn’t going to work. All you are doing by trying to sidetrack the comments from your behavior to the behavior of others is showing us that you aren’t willing to stand up and admit that you made a mistake. People can forgive (and sometimes forget) mistakes; they don’t forgive people who act as if though they are 100% infallible. You might notice that one or two bloggers/commenters out there in the deaf blogosphere act that way, and they have since been dismissed/ignored. I’d venture to say you’re quickly heading that way yourself.
One final thing: one thing that really bothers me of late when reading your self-defensive postings is your tendency to say things such as “You don’t really know what you are talking about. You only know bits and pieces of the story…”
This isn’t the first time or place that you’ve said this. You’d think maybe since you’ve had to say this a few times that perhaps it might be incumbent on you to share your side of the story? Even if Neil is wrong, and you are correct, you can be certain he isn’t going to be the only one with questions. Wouldn’t it be faster and easier to share the story at once? For that matter, it’d definitely help your credibility. Generally,I find that people who say things like this publicly tend to not have a whole lot to back them up in the end. It’s merely a tactic to stall, to divert attention from the issue at hand.
The issue is this: you misrepresented yourself to Mr. Graham. You then shadowed him under false pretenses. That’s it– it’s that simple. Has nothing to do with how much money you spent, how hard (or not) you worked during the protest, or what you’ve said elsewhere.
A final thing to consider– as Wolfers said, if the genders were reversed, most people would consider it stalking. Let’s reverse it a bit more: if someone came up to YOU and misrepresented themselves and then followed you the way you have Mr. Graham, how would you feel? What would you think?
January 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Neil’s argument has merit and what Mr. Riley had done was purely unethical. Writers and reporters follows a code of ethics and fairness doctrine. To pretend to be something you are not is “deceptive” and unjust.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Working Brian, see what happens if we have a discourse?
R-
January 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I would not think that there is any difference between Brian Riley/Adrian Apollo and Mr. Feld/Mr. Deepthroat. The latter was The Washington Post’s respected Journalist Bob Woodward’s informant about Nixon and the Watergate scandal in 1970s. Woodward, who has epistled numerous books, including the latest one, “State of Denial” about the Bush Administration, never knew Mr. Deepthroat’s true name until 30 years later. At first, The Washington Post’s publisher Katherine Graham hesitated, but she was constantly reassured that that “Mr. Deepthroat’s” information was reliable. The revelation of the true name was finally made only about a year or two ago). Mr. Deepthroat, himself a FBI agent, spied at the Watergate and informed Woodward, and, in turn, Woodward kept the public informed about President Nixon as a liar about the Watergate. The information resulted in one of the most historic (!) Congressional impeachment hearings (Nixon resigned instead of facing an inevitable impeachment). Did the FBI stop the pension benefits and send Mr. Deepthroat to jail? No. Why? Simply put, the information was reliable. Mr. Feld has, therefore, been hailed as a hero thereafter. Had it not been Mr. Deepthroat, the public would have been clueless and President Nixon would not have resigned . The same can be said about for Informant Brian Riley. Deaf people would have been in the oblivion. Therefore, there is a deep sense of indignation and resistance amongst pro-Fernandesd towards Brian Riley who chose to be a loyalist to the protesters. I consider BR as a true friend of deaf Gallaudetians and see a parallel between him and other hearing loyalists of deaf people, including Willian Stokoe, the father of ASL linguistics, and President Edward C. Merrill who courageously wrote a letter telling the BoT to select a deaf president in 1988. Maybe you will come into full realisation 10 years later and eventually appreciate the loyalty of Brian Riley. Time will speak itself.
Jean Boutcher
January 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Sorry, Sandman. I stand by my previous statement.
This was an extraordinary circumstance and my behavior was totally 100% ethical.
I never said that I was going to publish everything that Bill Graham told me. So far I have only released newsworthy material that related to Gallaudet.
My actions were pure and honest. I did my part to help achieve victory in the protest and I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Ms. Boutcher;
Yes, Mr. Feld performed a great service in uncovering the crimes of Watergate. I emphasize that crimes were authorized, committed and covered up by President Nixon.
I would think even the most ardent JKF/IKJ opponent would be hard-pressed to say that a crime was committed by the Board of Trustees at any point in time.
So what did Mr. Graham do to deserve the “cloak-and-dagger” treatment from Mr. Riley? As far as I can tell, nothing.
Thank you for your comments.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Neil,
Yes there WAS at least one violation of Federal Law. The Board did not properly get a nomination from the GUAA as required by Federal law.
You can read the press release about this here:
http://groups.google.com/group/gallyprotest/browse_thread/thread/a7eda9d8b853f042/#
Scroll down to read Item 3.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Mr. Riley,
Let me know when the U.S. Attorney’s office in DC files criminal charges against Gallaudet and secures a conviction.
Thanks!
January 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
You’re not being logical. You asked me to provide justification for viewing this as an extraordinary circumstance that requires checking into. Obviously, someone or some group of people has to start the investigative process moving.
You seem to have your mind made up in advance that I am at fault. You are not being open to listening to my side of the story via private e-mail. You are not being fair at all. You are doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing to others.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Mr. Riley;
I gave you an opportunity to change my mind privately but I only saw the continuation of the behavior that Sandman has already commented on: self-defense based on a variety of vaporous rationales.
The truly sad thing in this whole affair is you are obviously quite intelligent. For example, you and I agree with the gist of your article in regards to the failure of our national model for public education. http://web.archive.org/web/20041105005041/www.hypernumber.com/ItsTimeToToss.html
January 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I’m sorry, Neil. You cut me off in our private e-mail exchange before it ever really got started.
It’s clear to me that you do not want to hear my side of the story. I was involved with the protest in the very early stages and I had very good reasons to do what I did.
You apparently don’t want to do the honorable thing. You want to treat me unfairly in exactly the same way that you accuse me of treating others unfairly.
It’s clear to me that you had your mind made up in advance.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Mr. Riley:
“It’s clear to me that you do not want to hear my side of the story.”
Tell us in here and I am willing to listen.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Brian/Adrian– considering quite a few of us have questions/concerns, sharing your side of the story publicly would have a far more refreshing effect than this running skirmish you have with Neil over private communications.
You can stand by whatever you want, but I, at least, don’t view your actions as being “100% ethical,” or honest. Masking who you really were was bad enough; shadowing Graham as someone writing a book while actually spying on him is dishonesty towards Graham, at best. In your own words, posted on Bibliomarket, you shared this: “I got to sit down with him and his best friend, both cochlear implantees. I was pretending to not know sign language…”
Since you claim to be such a friend to the deaf community and pro-deaf, you should know that you’ve committed a cardinal sin: when you are in the same room/space with other deaf people, you do not watch or eavesdrop on conversation without acknowledging your ability to sign. To me, that’s not “pure and honest.” Regardless of your purposes in this matter, you just don’t do that.
I and others would be cutting you a lot more slack if you weren’t as unethical as you have been, and if you’d been more open and aboveboard about this from the beginning of this thread. As it is, you don’t have a whole lot of credbility right now with me, and I don’t think it’s really Neil’s place to have to explain himself; I think it’s yours.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Please STOP criticizing me in public without talking to me privately FIRST! You don’t know what the situation was and you are not stating it properly.
My e-mail is brian.riley(at)yahoo.com
I’ve had enough. Stop demand that you stop this now.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Then please explain yourself, Mr. Riley. If everyone with questions contacted you via e-mail, your inbox would be flooded with messages. Can you explain publicly or at least explain WHY you will not explain yourself publicly? That would stop a lot of this, like you want.
Just a gentle thought.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Brian/Adrian– you either posted your narrative about your experience with Bill Graham at Bibliomarket or you gave your permission for it to be posted. If you do not want to receive any sort of criticism publicly, then I suggest you not share such experiences publicly. I really don’t understand the logic behind your desire to privacy over something that was posted, either by you or with your permission, in a public forum, for anyone to see.
You’re right– we only know the situation so far from what you’ve PUBLICLY posted. Perhaps now you’d like to PUBLICLY follow up, or as cali says, “at least explain WHY you will not explain yourself publicly?”
If you can’t do one or the other, then I really don’t see how you can expect us to honor your demands.
As I said earlier, Neil (and the rest of us) doesn’t owe you an explanation; I still think you do, if you’re still insisting on standing 100% by your behavior.
January 16th, 2007 at 7:38 am
What I demand is that you refrain from criticizing me without FIRST contacting me privately to clear up your misconceptions. After you understand the situation, THEN it would be proper to criticize me.
And no more hiding behind pseudonyms.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Just like you were hiding behind “Adrian Apollo” with Bill Graham?
Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black…
January 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
No, your are being unfair and are jumping to conclusions without being fair to me by contacting me privately first to clarify the situation so that you can understand it before you attempt to criticize me.
If you were an honest truth seeker, you wouldn’t attack me the way do.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
People are not attacking you and they were concerned why you asked them to contact you via private. You want everyone to contact you in private? Why not one same message for all?
January 16th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
DeafLinux,
This is the last time I will say it. We need to put a stop to this crab theory once and for all. I am not going to allow the crab’s claws to pull me down.
I’m sorry. I simply will NOT allow it.
The protest is serious, serious business. This is not an entertainment event. Thousands of deaf students lives in the future depend on what we do today.
I am not going to be a part of this.
January 16th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Mr. Riley, I agree with your last statement - no crab theory, the protest was serious business, we need to think about the next generation of deaf students, and all that. I still fail to understand why you will not explain yourself publicly. Can you tell us why not? I, and many others, would like to understand where you’re coming from. Thank you.
January 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Mr. Riley/Apollo, there, there… we wouldn’t want you to go postal, would we? *grin*
Seriously, I agree with cali– the protest was serious business, and it certainly wasn’t an entertainment event. You’ll find no disagreement on that subject.
That said, you still haven’t explained anything, nor have you been willing to state why you won’t explain yourself publicly.
I’m not jumping to conclusions on anything. I’m merely stating my opinion based on the facts provided by you thus far. I cannot assume any conclusion beyond those that I have already reached, and am only sharing my thoughts based on what I know– again, your published statement on Bibliomarket regarding your actions towards Bill Graham. I said that I found your behavior thus far to be unethical. Like Neil, DeafLinux, cali, and others, I’m more than willing to listen to your “side of the story.” Neil even went so far as to have a private exchange with you. The fact that Neil then stated, “I gave you an opportunity to change my mind privately but I only saw the continuation of the behavior that Sandman has already commented on: self-defense based on a variety of vaporous rationales,” indicates to me that you don’t really have a logical rationale for your behavior with Graham. As it is, you’re now trying to sidetrack the issue again by portraying yourself as a victim, and making demands. Considering you went public, without prompting, about your misrepresentation to and shadowing of Graham, I’d say you didn’t have any right to demand people “hear you out first” — you shared this particular story, so on this specific matter, we’ve already heard your side. If you have more to add, you are certainly welcome to do so. But to insist that we cannot say anything on what you have already said is ridiculous, don’t you think?
It’s been slightly amusing, to say the least, but it’s also getting tiresome. If you’re not willing to add anything substantial, then this is pretty much over. If I wanted to spend my time with someone who insists on playing the role of injured party, I could do that elsewhere. But here or elsewhere, I’m not really interested in doing that.
So– either share whatever you’d like to add in the way of telling “your side of the story,” or explain why you won’t do so publicly. One or the other– otherwise, that’s that.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:24 am
David/Sandman,
No. Stop it. You are misrepresenting what I wrote above.
That’s enough.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 am
Mr. Riley/Apollo,
I rest my case. You can’t even answer anyone’s questions without whining. Good luck– I think you’ll need it.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
David,
Obviously you’re not making an honest effort to read what I wrote above. I wrote that I don’t mind people criticizing me as long as they contact me first to get a fuller picture of what happened.
That’s only fair. And I’m not going to answer any of your questions because you have not contacted me privately. There’s nothing whiney about that.
Why do you feel the need to write about me in such a negative way when you don’t even know who I am and you have not lifted a finger to correspond with me privately?
I question your motives.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 am
OK, Mr. Riley; I’m going to try and ask this question as clearly as I can:
You posted a blog entry detailing your interactions with Mr. Graham on Bibliomarket. In other words, you voluntarily made this public information. Now, since you did that, why should this discussion move to the PRIVATE arena when you, yourself, made it PUBLIC?
I contacted you in private with an open mind and after two responses where you basically repeated what you’ve already posted here several times, it became a waste of my time.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
That’s not what I’m asking you to do. I don’t mind at all discussing it in public. But what I object to is people rushing to make hasty judgments without contacting me first to give me a chance to clear up any misconceptions and give them more information that they need to judge me properly.
You cut me off much too quickly in our private e-mail exchange. You don’t really know who I am or what my contribution to the protest has been. You still don’t know.
If you would give me a chance to tell the whole story to you in e-mail, then you would probably be praising me instead of rushing to make all these hasty and unfair judgments.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Man, I came into this too late!
Brian Riley…just answer the damn question! Neil just had asked u publicly and you are still whining/avoiding it. Hmm….as a person coming into this too late, you are NOT really looking good in the public eye right now. You are avoiding the people’s questions and whining about to talk to you in private when they are asking to speak out publicly so that me and other bystanders can get the true gist of the story/situation. Keep in mind…I am not trying to insult you or anything…I do respect your hard work within the protest but ur actions with Bill Graham has raised some eyebrows that’s all.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
[...] defense of this deception. I’m not going to re-hash that now; you can find the whole story here. Since then, I put the incident largely out of mind, until Riley posted an entry at his blog [...]