evile: happy Tuesday! 
SkyeDS: :)
SkyeDS: any word on 			Paulie yet? talked to Connie yesterday, all 
systems go 			there.
evile: [brother A] never did show up yesterday. I'm glad 			y'all didn't get 
stuck waiting around for him.
SkyeDS: 			ah
SkyeDS: well, I told Connie this may or may not 			happen.
evile: the story now is he's going to come up and leave 			Paulie in our 
backyard if we aren't home.
SkyeDS: sineater 			explained as much as she needed to know about the 
situation 			and she is very understanding.
SkyeDS: wtf???
evile: I am 			not sure why he can't be left at L&B's, who have a 
fence & 			[aunt L]s actually home most of the day.
evile: Oh well. 			
evile: We can't believe anything [brother A]/[the rubber pig] 			tell us, so I will just 
wait & when/if Paulie shows up, 			we'll go from there.
SkyeDS: situation normal, all fucked 			up....
evile: yup
evile: How was the rest of your 			Monday?
SkyeDS: very restful
SkyeDS: I needed it (still need 			it actually)
SkyeDS: went home, read, slept
evile: 			good.
SkyeDS: writing that godawful letter now
evile: 			*nod*
SkyeDS: no way it's going to be one page either 			(sigh)
evile: yuck.
SkyeDS: well, I can't think of any other 			way to put this but, "please 
don't let it happen 			again"
evile: *nod* 
evile: the simpler the better, 			IMHO. Seems very logical to ask them 
to leave others out of 			the loop & contact you directly with any 
questions or 			problems re: your own dang business..,
evile: and not 			unreasonable to ask to be dealt with respectfully ie: 
no 			shouting or people hanging up on you 
SkyeDS: if I posted this 			to my livejournal do you think you could 
take a look?
evile: 			Ok.
SkyeDS: how do you do that (read more) thing so everyone 			isn't 
subjected to it unless they want to be?
evile: 			<lj-cut> to open it, and </lj-cut> to close 			it.
SkyeDS: ty
evile: no problem :)
evile: Wish Sharjinka 			would use that more--her entries are always nice 
to read & 			whatnot but very long.
SkyeDS: ack
SkyeDS: it removes all 			the very necessary formatting
evile: thank goodness for the 			'preview' button...
SkyeDS: I would rather it be long and 			formatted.
SkyeDS: it's too hard to read without the 			formatting
evile: yeah.
SkyeDS: I read it to 			sineater
SkyeDS: he thought it was harsh :(
evile: 			*sigh*
SkyeDS: posted.
evile: I usually write, get it all 			out, then leave it sit for a day 
or so and go back and 			re-read, edit, etc.
SkyeDS: what I was thinkin
SkyeDS: I 			read half a dozen business writing sites while I was 
writing 			it too
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: all comments welcome of 			course
evile: Ok
evile: I think you should mention her by 			name & title, if applicable. 
evile: Personally, I never 			respond well to 'some people said' bla bla.
SkyeDS: you mean 			Becky?
SkyeDS: all I know is her first name, and she didn't 			mention having a 
title
SkyeDS: and I could f ind no 			reference to Becky at all on the chamber 
webpage
evile: the 			actual person who called you at the crack of dawn, yelled 
at 			you, hung up on you, and then defamed you to whatsername at the 			
SCa. 
SkyeDS: right
evile: Try to find out her last name 			& title 
evile: the problem is not with the Chamber as a 			whole, as you said. 
So keep it specific to the one person who 			caused you trouble & did so 
under the assumed mantle of 			'chamber rep'
SkyeDS: nods. is why I used Chamber rep to refer 			to her
SkyeDS: get the point across that, um, is this the way 			the Chamber 
wants to communicate?
evile: I'd still try to 			go with name & title, or name & 'chamber rep'
SkyeDS: 			that would work
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: I don't think she has a 			title or it would be on the webpage 
with everyone 			else's
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: I thought it would be better not 			to name names because I 
don't want it to sound like a personal 			vendetta
SkyeDS: but if you think I should give her 			name.
SkyeDS: I don't even know her last name, btw
evile: 			it's not. I'ts just very 'star magazine' to say 'a person from 			
your org did this and such and was rude'
evile: I would 			make an effort to discover her last name, if she was 
organizing 			this or purporting to be the organizer, I'm sure it's 			
available.
SkyeDS: reverse lookup on phone
SkyeDS: oh 			good, sineater already wrote down her last name
evile: 			good.
SkyeDS: I know Karen told Becky she'd be glad to give me 			a msg
SkyeDS: but that isn't the point
SkyeDS: Becky ought 			to know better
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: and if the response is, 			she isn't a chamber representative, 
well, that's what she put 			herself forth as
SkyeDS: and the Chamber gave us her 			number
SkyeDS: and most importantly, that's what the clients 			see her as being
evile: *nod * And she was also saying she was 			the event organizer, 
right?
SkyeDS: right
SkyeDS: and 			the event was sponsored by the Chamber
evile: yup. so they need 			to know that their organizer was causing 
people hassles. Or 			that someone they did NOT designate as their 
organizer was 			puting herself out there as the organizer & hassling 
people, 			either way.
SkyeDS: yep
SkyeDS: I don't see why sineater 			thought it was harsh
SkyeDS: I didn't say, if you do this again 			or don't fix it or give me 
what I demand, or whatever, I"ll 			sue you.
SkyeDS: to me, that's harsh.
evile: I'm not sure 			what I think of it yet.
evile: harsh isn't the word, but 			...something.
evile: sit on it until thursday or friday, then 			take another look & 
see what you can leave out or how you 			can tighten it up. Definitely 
keep it to the main issues & 			focus on what you expect from future 
interactions with this 			person and/or any member of the Chamber. 
(which you've pretty 			much done already)
SkyeDS: food is good
evile: yup
evile: 			1 and a half hours until go-time and I'm done with my quota. 
WIth 			all the 'all stick no carrot' treatment I've been getting at 
work 			the last 2-3 years, imagine how motivated I am to work 			more...
SkyeDS: lol
evile: I do have some papers I can 			shuffle until time to clock out.
SkyeDS: <looking up 			tortious interference
evile: what fun.
SkyeDS: probably 			couldn't establish TI because we don't have a 
contract
SkyeDS: 			even though it did cause damage to a relationship between two 			
parties
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: tortious interference is a 			third party's act to intentionally 
and willfully interfere and 			break a contract between two parties, 
causing damage to the 			relationship between those contracting 
parties. 
evile: 			but you'd have to prove financial/business losses, hes?
evile: 			hes=yes
SkyeDS: right
evile: a bit of a challenge this early 			on.
SkyeDS: point of letter being, you came >< this close 			to it, this 
time. please don't do it again.
SkyeDS: but 			anyway, I'm supposed to be paring it down, not adding to 			
it.
SkyeDS: even if I'd lost Karen's business and all the 			rest of my 
business, I don't have contracts, and that's an 			element of TI
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: ooh in Texas tho:
SkyeDS: 			Tortious Interference With Prospective Contracts: Different 
from 			Tortious Interference With Contract 
The following differences 			from the tort of interference with a 
contract are important 			when considering a claim for tortious 
interference with a 			prospective contract: 
The actual existence of a contract 			is not required to maintain a 
claim for tortious interference 			with a prospective contract. 
Some courts have held that 			malice, whether actual or legal, is 
required to maintain a 			claim for tortious interference with a 
prospective contract. 			
Fair competition may be a defense to a claim for tortious 			
interference with a prospective contract 
evile: I'd 			save that one for a 2nd offense, if I were you.
SkyeDS: it 			isn't leaving my head believe me
SkyeDS: although Denice made a 			point of thanking us for participating 
twice before we 			left
SkyeDS: my guess is she's going to fall all over herself 			to make this 
right
evile: *nod*
SkyeDS: and actually I 			should have termed it Business Disparagement 
rather than 			Slander and Defamation
SkyeDS: although they all three 			apply
SkyeDS: the first to business dealings and the second two 			to personal 
dealings
SkyeDS: thing is, my business depends 			on my personal reputation
evile: right
SkyeDS: After trial, 			a Dallas jury awarded Mr. Hagler $1.5 million in 
actual and 			$14 million in punitive damages. This verdict represented 
the 			largest libel verdict in the United States in 1993. The National 			
Lawyer described it as one of the most important verdicts of 			the 
year. 
SkyeDS: that is a lot of verdict.
evile: 			wow.
evile: Well, i'm gettin ready to take off and you're AFK. 			I emailed 
you with suggestions. Feel free to take them with as 			much salt as you 
want. *hugs* 
SkyeDS: [Auto Response] I am 			currently away from the computer.