pomeroo
10th July 2007, 02:33 PM
Some of you have been inquiring about the status of my interview with David Ray Griffin. By failing to convey my intentions to the producer, I blew the July 10 date I thought I had locked in. I also lost the August 7 date. I wrote Prof. Griffin to inform him that I had definitely reserved the studio for two shows on August 28.
A funny thing happened: Willie Rodriguez showed up and announced that he had informed Griffin that I had posted exchanges relating to the technical problems we were experiencing. From a naive standpoint, it was hard to figure out why Rodriguez was telling Griffin something he--obviously--already knew. But, our Willie always has an angle. Anyway, here is my most recent exchange with Prof. Griffin:
Dear Prof. Griffin,
The difficulties with the audio were not so easy to resolve. I have the studio booked for two shows on August 28. I still hope to feature you in one of them. If it can't be done, it won't be for lack of effort.
Ron
Ron,
A friend named William told me a couple weeks ago that you had posted some comments on the JREF forum about our conversations about my appearing on your show.
In reply, I sent him the letter pasted below.
If you would post this letter on that website, along with your statement that what I have said is true (as you know it is), then we could talk about the possibility of picking up our conversation about my appearing on your show.
DG
------------
Dear William,
Thanks for your letter, alerting me about the posting by “pomeroo” on the JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85834).
You are certainly right to say that he seems to be an unscrupulous character, who manipulates the truth to serve his own ends.
In this posting, he not only felt free to print our private correspondence without asking my permission. He also distorted the truth about the way our correspondence ended. He implied that the discussion about the possibility of our doing an interview broke down because of me, then said: “Draw your own conclusions.”
Here were the final e-mails between us (it is my policy never to print email correspondence without the permission of the other person unless, as in this case, the other person has already seen fit to print some of it):
On June 2, 2007, in an email headed “Success,” he wrote: “Dear Prof. Griffin, It appears as though we're in luck! A technician has informed us that we should be able to route an outgoing call into the audio mixer. So the July 3 interview will proceed as planned. Ron”
On that same day, I replied: “Ron, OK. Please remind me of the time (I’m on Pacific time) and the length of the interview. DG“
I don’t recall receiving, and cannot find any record of, a response to this letter. The next email from him that I have recovered is one from June 13, in which he wrote: “Dear Prof. Griffin, I have a cell phone. If you don't have a webcam, I suppose we can simply display a photo of you.”
That same day, I replied: “Ron, I'm pretty much a Luddite. But I do have a photograph, which is attached. Remind me when we’re doing it. DG”
That was the last I heard from him. Draw your own conclusions.
Cordially,
David Griffin
Dear Prof. Griffin,
Your "friend" is a truly unscrupulous character named William Rodriguez. I had invited him to appear on 'Hardfire' to debate Mark Roberts or simply to tell his story in an interview with me. He had absolutely no intention of doing either, but lacked the integrity to decline the invitation in a straightforward manner. Instead, sniffing out an opportunity to score obscure polemical points, he sent me--and posted on the JREF--a bogus acceptance followed, fifteen minutes later, by a withdrawal of his acceptance that dripped with feigned indignation. What, you may wonder, was he indignant about? It turns out that he claims to have been deeply offended by my posting the invitation to him on the JREF, the forum where I announce forthcoming 'Hardfire' guests. That his mindless followers were confused by the game he was playing became evident in exchanges on the Loose Change Forum. They kept insisting that he was right to refuse to peddle his snake oil in any venue other than the fawningly uncritical ones he restricts himself to. I made the point that no one thought he was obligated to accept my, or any, invitation, but his disingenuousness--pretending to agree to appear, then pulling out for a reason that made no sense--left a bad taste. To leave absolutely no doubts about Rodriguez's insincerity, I responded to his statement that he "admired" Mark Roberts by offering to drop out of the picture and let Roberts interview him. If I were the problem, then there no longer was a problem, right? The upshot was, we all got the idea that Willie isn't talking to anyone who isn't a True Believer, and he certainly isn't doing it for free.
Now, you are suggesting that I am manipulating some sort of "truth" concerning our prospective interview. What might that "truth" be? Originally, I invited you to appear on the show either to debate Mark Roberts or to discuss your new book. I wasn't exactly sanguine about the chances that you would accept, but I thought it was worth pursuing. I must say that your willingness to talk about your book came as a pleasant surprise. Still, I refrained from announcing the show, as we hadn't yet nailed down the scheduling details. Apparently, there was a misunderstanding over the logistics. I assumed that you knew that we tape in a studio in Brooklyn and you must have assumed that I was asking you to participate in a call-in show. Very well. My producer assured me that we could handle a call-in, although showing a photo of the guest makes for less engrossing theater than actually interacting with him.
Now things started getting messy. You informed us that you wouldn't place the call, that it was your "policy" never to do so. The producer lost interest, speculating that you had no intention of doing the show and were creating frivolous roadblocks. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. We began casting about for ways to circumvent the limitations imposed by our primitive technology. Several plausible solutions were proposed and I wrote to inform you that we could accommodate you. I thought that I had the studio reserved for July 10, but it turned out that I hadn't adequately communicated my intentions. I also had the back-up date of August 7 pulled out from under me. May I remind you that I suspect that the producer doesn't think you're serious about doing the show. He and I have settled on August 28 for two 9/11-related shows, one of which will feature Mark Roberts discussing distortions of first-responder quotes and the ever-changing story of Willie Rodriguez.
My private e-mails are unanimous in concluding that you have no desire to answer questions about your book. Your "policy" of refusing to make the call that would remove all of our technical obstacles sounds exactly as strange as you intend it to sound. So, let's return to my "unscrupulous" manipulation of the "truth."
If you really don't intend to renege on your agreement, then the people who are hinting at bad faith on your part will be proved wrong. If we are ultimately unable to provide the sound-quality our viewers expect, I will post publicly that your word was good and we simply couldn't overcome the technical problems. Regarding your "policy," I can only repeat that people who want to see the interview will have to draw their own conclusions.
Over the years, I have learned a great truth: When simple things become very difficult, someone is making them difficult. If you wanted to do the interview, you'd just do it. But, but... If we can figure out how to route an outgoing call into our audio mixer, and you proceed as planned, nobody has anything to complain about. No harm, no foul.
The emergence of the devious Willie Rodriguez raises the specter of a ham-fistedly orchestrated feud for the purpose of blowing smoke. If you decide that something terrible has happened, and you are just too offended to continue, well, that's precisely how lots of people expect this episode to play out.
You and I are not feuding. I have done nothing unscrupulous, and you understand that perfectly well. For the regulars on the JREF, the situation is uncomplicated: You are scheduled to discuss your book on 'Hardfire' unless we are incapable of surmounting the hurdles you've set up. I have misrepresented absolutely nothing you've said to me, and more importantly, NO ONE THINKS I HAVE.
I will comply with your request by posting your e-mail, along with my reply.
Best Regards,
Ron
A funny thing happened: Willie Rodriguez showed up and announced that he had informed Griffin that I had posted exchanges relating to the technical problems we were experiencing. From a naive standpoint, it was hard to figure out why Rodriguez was telling Griffin something he--obviously--already knew. But, our Willie always has an angle. Anyway, here is my most recent exchange with Prof. Griffin:
Dear Prof. Griffin,
The difficulties with the audio were not so easy to resolve. I have the studio booked for two shows on August 28. I still hope to feature you in one of them. If it can't be done, it won't be for lack of effort.
Ron
Ron,
A friend named William told me a couple weeks ago that you had posted some comments on the JREF forum about our conversations about my appearing on your show.
In reply, I sent him the letter pasted below.
If you would post this letter on that website, along with your statement that what I have said is true (as you know it is), then we could talk about the possibility of picking up our conversation about my appearing on your show.
DG
------------
Dear William,
Thanks for your letter, alerting me about the posting by “pomeroo” on the JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85834).
You are certainly right to say that he seems to be an unscrupulous character, who manipulates the truth to serve his own ends.
In this posting, he not only felt free to print our private correspondence without asking my permission. He also distorted the truth about the way our correspondence ended. He implied that the discussion about the possibility of our doing an interview broke down because of me, then said: “Draw your own conclusions.”
Here were the final e-mails between us (it is my policy never to print email correspondence without the permission of the other person unless, as in this case, the other person has already seen fit to print some of it):
On June 2, 2007, in an email headed “Success,” he wrote: “Dear Prof. Griffin, It appears as though we're in luck! A technician has informed us that we should be able to route an outgoing call into the audio mixer. So the July 3 interview will proceed as planned. Ron”
On that same day, I replied: “Ron, OK. Please remind me of the time (I’m on Pacific time) and the length of the interview. DG“
I don’t recall receiving, and cannot find any record of, a response to this letter. The next email from him that I have recovered is one from June 13, in which he wrote: “Dear Prof. Griffin, I have a cell phone. If you don't have a webcam, I suppose we can simply display a photo of you.”
That same day, I replied: “Ron, I'm pretty much a Luddite. But I do have a photograph, which is attached. Remind me when we’re doing it. DG”
That was the last I heard from him. Draw your own conclusions.
Cordially,
David Griffin
Dear Prof. Griffin,
Your "friend" is a truly unscrupulous character named William Rodriguez. I had invited him to appear on 'Hardfire' to debate Mark Roberts or simply to tell his story in an interview with me. He had absolutely no intention of doing either, but lacked the integrity to decline the invitation in a straightforward manner. Instead, sniffing out an opportunity to score obscure polemical points, he sent me--and posted on the JREF--a bogus acceptance followed, fifteen minutes later, by a withdrawal of his acceptance that dripped with feigned indignation. What, you may wonder, was he indignant about? It turns out that he claims to have been deeply offended by my posting the invitation to him on the JREF, the forum where I announce forthcoming 'Hardfire' guests. That his mindless followers were confused by the game he was playing became evident in exchanges on the Loose Change Forum. They kept insisting that he was right to refuse to peddle his snake oil in any venue other than the fawningly uncritical ones he restricts himself to. I made the point that no one thought he was obligated to accept my, or any, invitation, but his disingenuousness--pretending to agree to appear, then pulling out for a reason that made no sense--left a bad taste. To leave absolutely no doubts about Rodriguez's insincerity, I responded to his statement that he "admired" Mark Roberts by offering to drop out of the picture and let Roberts interview him. If I were the problem, then there no longer was a problem, right? The upshot was, we all got the idea that Willie isn't talking to anyone who isn't a True Believer, and he certainly isn't doing it for free.
Now, you are suggesting that I am manipulating some sort of "truth" concerning our prospective interview. What might that "truth" be? Originally, I invited you to appear on the show either to debate Mark Roberts or to discuss your new book. I wasn't exactly sanguine about the chances that you would accept, but I thought it was worth pursuing. I must say that your willingness to talk about your book came as a pleasant surprise. Still, I refrained from announcing the show, as we hadn't yet nailed down the scheduling details. Apparently, there was a misunderstanding over the logistics. I assumed that you knew that we tape in a studio in Brooklyn and you must have assumed that I was asking you to participate in a call-in show. Very well. My producer assured me that we could handle a call-in, although showing a photo of the guest makes for less engrossing theater than actually interacting with him.
Now things started getting messy. You informed us that you wouldn't place the call, that it was your "policy" never to do so. The producer lost interest, speculating that you had no intention of doing the show and were creating frivolous roadblocks. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. We began casting about for ways to circumvent the limitations imposed by our primitive technology. Several plausible solutions were proposed and I wrote to inform you that we could accommodate you. I thought that I had the studio reserved for July 10, but it turned out that I hadn't adequately communicated my intentions. I also had the back-up date of August 7 pulled out from under me. May I remind you that I suspect that the producer doesn't think you're serious about doing the show. He and I have settled on August 28 for two 9/11-related shows, one of which will feature Mark Roberts discussing distortions of first-responder quotes and the ever-changing story of Willie Rodriguez.
My private e-mails are unanimous in concluding that you have no desire to answer questions about your book. Your "policy" of refusing to make the call that would remove all of our technical obstacles sounds exactly as strange as you intend it to sound. So, let's return to my "unscrupulous" manipulation of the "truth."
If you really don't intend to renege on your agreement, then the people who are hinting at bad faith on your part will be proved wrong. If we are ultimately unable to provide the sound-quality our viewers expect, I will post publicly that your word was good and we simply couldn't overcome the technical problems. Regarding your "policy," I can only repeat that people who want to see the interview will have to draw their own conclusions.
Over the years, I have learned a great truth: When simple things become very difficult, someone is making them difficult. If you wanted to do the interview, you'd just do it. But, but... If we can figure out how to route an outgoing call into our audio mixer, and you proceed as planned, nobody has anything to complain about. No harm, no foul.
The emergence of the devious Willie Rodriguez raises the specter of a ham-fistedly orchestrated feud for the purpose of blowing smoke. If you decide that something terrible has happened, and you are just too offended to continue, well, that's precisely how lots of people expect this episode to play out.
You and I are not feuding. I have done nothing unscrupulous, and you understand that perfectly well. For the regulars on the JREF, the situation is uncomplicated: You are scheduled to discuss your book on 'Hardfire' unless we are incapable of surmounting the hurdles you've set up. I have misrepresented absolutely nothing you've said to me, and more importantly, NO ONE THINKS I HAVE.
I will comply with your request by posting your e-mail, along with my reply.
Best Regards,
Ron