Random First Lines: I slipped on my black knitted turtle neck sweater. I liked it because it could cover up the very ugly scar on my... : Fan Fiction » Read

Welcome Visitor: Login to the siteJoin the site

TV Celebrity Grand-Standing For Charity. - Updated: September 24, 2007

Short Story By: EdwardJBradleySr
Editorial and Opinion


My most recent missive to the FOX Newschannel in exposing the duplicity of celebrity politicians and TV news people and the ways in which they manage to bilk a public which, for unknown reasons, continues to misplace it's trust in them. Will update this posting with whatever written or E-mailed response I may receive from Hannity et al, in the future.

----- Original Message -----
From: EDWARD BRADLEY
To: FOX Sean Hannity
Cc: FOX Alan Colmes ; FOX Bill O'Reilly ; FOX Greta VanSusteren
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: Your Summer 2007 Freedom Concerts - Fund-Raiser


Sean Hannity:

For the past several months, you have been using some of your air-time on the FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes TV news program to promote a charity fund-raiser you called the 2007 Freedom Concerts. The stated purpose was to provide college scholarships to the surviving children of American military servicemen who lost their lives in the War-On-Terror. If these concerts were a financial success, what will be the charitable focus in subsequent years? One may wonder!

To promote thess concerts, you used many prominent politicians, patriotic supporters of the War-On-Terror and well-known entertainers, some of whom would be performing at these concerts as well.

Now is the time for you to engage in full financial disclosure. Your public needs to be informed of the following:

1. How many full 4 year scholarships have been funded?

2. How many children would meet the eligibility requirements of being the surviving children of deceased American military personnel who lost their lives in the War-On-Terror? The total number.

3. If a sufficient number of these 4 year scholarships could not be funded, this year, to reach all eligible children in need of them now: How then do you intend to see a sufficient number are funded? Both now and in the future, when needed?

4. What were the total revenues of these concerts?

5. What costs were incurred in the production of these concerts?

6. Of these costs, how much, on an individual basis, was paid to each of the performers?

7. As the producer these concerts, how much were you paid or did you pay yourself?

8. If you did not receive financial compensation, then how much did you contribute from your own considerable wealth to this cause?

The public has a right to know all of this as you did a great deal to publicize these concert events. On your TV and radio programs. Under the auspices of and by using the far-reaching media resources of the FOX News Channel. Also: Are you registered with the N.Y.S. Board of Charities? Since you continually, on world-wide cable TV and radio, referred to these concerts as charitable or charity fund raisers.

Fully expect you to respond to all of these questions. Even if the law does not require you to do so. This will not be the last you will hear from me on this topic. Most especially if you do not respond or if your response is not adequate.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Edward J. Bradley, Sr.

PS - If there is one thing I cannot stand: It is anyone, even yourself perhaps, of Irish-American ancestry who, in their lives, accomplish little more than "giving a bad name" to the Irish.

PPS- In case you may be wondering: Like every other American, I am still paying for these same benefits, by way of paying my U.S. Income Taxes and Social Security taxes. Benefits which were cut, in the 1980's, by then U.S. President Ronald Reagan and the Democrats controlling the U.S. Congress. As part of a so-called "tax reform" which raised taxes on the working middle class and an increase in Social Security taxes. Why Ronald Reagan's so-called "tax cut" was able to produce increased revenues into the U.S. Treasury. View table of contents...

 

Submitted: May 26, 2007    Reads: 231    Comments: 8    Likes: 2   


----- Original Message -----
From: EDWARD BRADLEY
To: FOX Sean Hannity
Cc: FOX Alan Colmes ; FOX Bill O'Reilly ; FOX Greta VanSusteren
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: Your Summer 2007 Freedom Concerts - Fund-Raiser

Sean Hannity:
For the past several months, you have been using some of your air-time on the FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes TV news program to promote a charity fund-raiser you called the 2007 Freedom Concerts.  The stated purpose was to provide college scholarships to the surviving children of American military servicemen who lost their lives in the War-On-Terror.  If these concerts were a financial success, what will be the charitable focus in subsequent years?  One may wonder!
To promote thess concerts, you used many prominent politicians, patriotic supporters of the War-On-Terror and well-known entertainers, some of whom would be performing at these concerts as well.
Now is the time for you to engage in full financial disclosure.  Your public needs to be informed of the following:
1.  How many full 4 year scholarships have been funded?
2.  How many children would meet the eligibility requirements of being the surviving children of deceased American military personnel who lost their lives in the War-On-Terror?  The total number.
3.  If a sufficient number of these 4 year scholarships could not be funded, this year, to reach all eligible children in need of them now:  How then do you intend to see a sufficient number are funded?  Both now and in the future, when needed?
4.  What were the total revenues of these concerts?
5.  What costs were incurred in the production of these concerts?
6.  Of these costs, how much, on an individual basis, was paid to each of the performers?
7.  As the producer these concerts, how much were you paid or did you pay yourself?
8.  If you did not receive financial compensation, then how much did you contribute from your own considerable wealth to this cause?
The public has a right to know all of this as you did a great deal to publicize these concert events.  On your TV and radio programs.  Under the auspices of and by using the far-reaching media resources of the FOX News Channel.  Also: Are you registered with the N.Y.S. Board of Charities?  Since you continually, on world-wide cable TV and radio, referred to these concerts as charitable or charity fund raisers.
Fully expect you to respond to all of these questions.  Even if the law does not require you to do so.  This will not be the last you will hear from me on this topic.   Most especially if you do not respond or if your response is not adequate.
Happy trails,
Ed Bradley.
Edward J. Bradley, Sr.
PS - If there is one thing I cannot stand:  It is anyone, even yourself perhaps, of Irish-American ancestry who, in their lives, accomplish little more than "giving a bad name" to the Irish.
PPS-  In case you may be wondering:  Like every other American, I am still paying for these same benefits, by way of paying my U.S. Income Taxes and Social Security taxes.  Benefits which were cut, in the 1980's, by then U.S. President Ronald Reagan and the Democrats controlling the U.S. Congress.   As part of a so-called "tax reform" which raised taxes on the working middle class and an increase in Social Security taxes.  Why Ronald Reagan's so-called "tax cut" was able to produce increased revenues into the U.S. Treasury.

 ----- Original Message -----

From: EDWARD BRADLEY

To: FOX Alan Colmes ; FOX Sean Hannity

Cc: FOX Bill O'Reilly

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:10 AM

Subject: Broadcast Of Friday, May 25, 2007 with guests Newt Gingrich and Oliver North. Disingenuous Charity Drive.

Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity and to whomever else it may concern:

Prior to 1985, the college educational benefits for which Newt Gingrich and Oliver North are now conducting a charitable fund raising drive (and with your help) were provided to the children of all Americans by the U. S. Social Security System and/or, as in the case of war-time/service-connected deaths of U.S. military veterans, by the U.S. Veteran's Administration.

Newt Gingrich is a depraved individual because, he was serving in the U. S. Congress when these benefits were cut. Supposed super-patriot Ronald Reagan occupied the White House.

This was all part of his so-called "reform" of the U.S. Income Tax Code and his so-called "saving" of the U.S. Social Security System.

In both cases, there was an increase in income taxes and Social Security taxes paid by middle income working Americans. High income Americans, like all of you FOX headliners who are over-paid by $-millions annually, received a tax rate cut to compensate for the loss of deductions also being used by middle income Americans.

With the U.S. Social Security System, this was all a ruse to increase the size of the Social Security tax "surplus" so that the true size of the resulting annual budget deficit and the national debt would be artificially reduced and disguised. It also created the illusion of producing higher income tax revenues from an economy, allegedly. stimulated to become more robust and productive. The true result was a tax increase along with a loss of income and a lower living standard for working middle income Americans.

At the time, the size of the Marriage Penalty may have increased as well. Thereby, discrediting the rhetoric of the, so-called, "family values" Republicans. In all of this, since 1970 and before, the national leadership of the Republican Party (this would include Congressman Newt Gingrich) has been just as depraved as the national leadership of the Democrat Party. With the Republicans being more stupid in their incredulousness. Just as the Democrats were being more sly in their disingenuousness. The Marriage Penalty only became an "issue" and part of the Republican Party's "Contract With America" after it was increased, precipitously, by the 1993 "Clinton" increase in the U.S. Income Tax Code. Why wouldn't the national Republican leadership readily recognize a campaign issue they also helped create? The Marriage Penalty actually increased under President Bush (#43) but a larger (and temporary) deduction was used to make appear as though it was lessened. Most clever.

If there is a lack of patriotism, in any of this, it is in conducting a deceptive fund-raiser by persons who helped to plunder those exact same benefits, in the 1st place. And to do so among persons whose income and Social Security taxes continued to pay for them after those same benefits have been cut. By the Democratic Congress and the Reagan White House in the 1980's.

Super patriot Oliver North, lost his U.S. Marine Corps career and pension, for his illegal, though publically popular, participation in the Iran-Contra scandal. He became popular as a "victim" of the U.S. Congress and not by the Reagan White House, which is closer to the truth. When he ran for the U.S. Senate, North was opposed by the same cohort of national Republicans for whom he "martyred" himself. Nancy Reagan even traveled to Virginia, during the U.S. Senate campaign, to speak against North and endorse John Warner, North's Republican primary opponent.

And what has North done since then but to promote his "celebrity" as a Super-Patriot by reading dialogue used to accompany his popular FOX Newschannel program "War Stories"? He may write his dialogue but it would not surprise me to discover he does not. Much like Bill Kurtis on the A&E Channel. In other words, he may be nothing more than a convincingly authorative and pleasing voice reciting dialogue written for him by others producing his documentary news/history TV program. And like the rest of you, is paid in excess of $-millions a year to do so. Oliver North, unlike the rest of you, may earn all of his income and, prior to this, was victimized by Newt Gingrich and the national Republican leadership he served during the 1980's and 1990's.

True patriotism is about true self-sacrifice of one's life, health and treasure in defending America and not about posing to do so by engaging in self-glorification, gratification and selfishness. As all of you are doing by being generous with the money of other people only.

Other people who must already bear an unfair burden of paying taxes on their entire incomes while all of you pay Social Security taxes on only the 1st $100,000 of your annual incomes.

Bill Clinton and Bob Dole "staged" the same publicity stunt in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001. Allegedly for the children of those who lost their lives at the World Trade Center.? Bob Dole, also, was a Republican Pary leader of the U.S. Senate when all of these same benefits were cut.

In 2006, Bill Clinton and former President George Bush (# 41) headed a well publicized and most successful fund-raiser for the victims of the Christmas-Day, 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami.

My questions:

1. How much of their own wealth did they, as individuals, contribute?

2. Or was this, also, like their time in government service, to engender the generosity of others? Albeit, voluntarily and with full foreknowledge in this case.

3. Is it possible they were paid something from the funds they were able to raise?

4. Can these same questions be asked of each, any or all of you with respect to this fund-raising effort?

Similarly and again!

5. Just how much of your own wealth will any of you deploy in the interest of furthering the success of this fund-raising effort?

6. Including that portion of your own "tax-free" wealth you may have "stashed offshore" in secret bank accounts? Though most doubtful, the tax-paying public may also wonder! As do I.

My point is this:

Middle class working Americans have already paid for these benefits.

Gingrich, North and yourselves are conducting a highly publicized charitable fund-raiser to "trick them" into paying for these benefits, a second time (must be the "charm"!). And for a much more severely limited number of persons than who were able to benefit from them before 1985.

As all of you political, media and economic "fat-cat" celebrities bathing yourselves in the "false image" of being patriotic and charitable. Please be careful! Don't injure your most valuable hands and fingers (unaccustomed to real work and labor), shaking each other's hands and slapping yourselves on the back for a "job well done". Just continue in your highly successful efforts to make all decent Americans sick!

Happy trails,

Edward J. Bradley, Sr.

Albany, New York

PS - Please forward to Newt Gingrich, Oliver North and former, current & future Presidents Bush(41), Clinton(42), Bush(43) and Clinton(44). Since 1980, primary members of both of these 2 families have occupied the White House. If Hillary succeeds (as, I expect, she will), this will be an uninterrupted period of 36 consecutive years. 7. How much more pathetic can a political situation be? 8. In a democratic(!?) America? One may wonder!


2

Email this story Email this story | Print Story Print Story | Add to reading list

Comments:

Yes these things just make you sick, like why we have to pay for wars we don't want and celebrities that start the ball rolling with a good thing to egg everyone on, as you said - how much do they really part with? Goverments take a small chunk to put towards this and that, well done them? US! We all know the injustices, but what do we do? Good points!!

Posted: May 26, 2007

Author Comment:

WhiteWolf:

Thank you for your remarks.

Your question: "..., but what do we do?" is an issue of central importance. Like medical disease/illness: social, political, economic and military problems require an accurate diagnosis before an effective treatment can be provided. Either to cure the ailment or suppress the symptoms and relieve the patient's suffering.

My premise: "The patient suffers most and longest with ailments which, in the 1st place, are not accurately diagnosed." Entrenched politicians and their friends in the mass media (and elsewhere) see to it an accurate diagnosis is never ascertained. All by way of misleading and misdirecting the focus and attention of the public.

In a democracy, public opinion matters as this is where the diagnosis, for the ailing body politic, is defined. My intent is to inform and, hopefully, enlighten the public as to the "real" problem(s) confronting and burdening them.

My hope: With the most accurate understanding of their own social problems, the public, hopefully, can then elect government officials who can, also, understand and will know how to choose and apply an effective treatment. A treatment which is fair, just and maximally effective. And that they will, in fact, proceed to do so when their election to office provides them with the opportunity. In the absence of this, democratic government(s) will fail and be replaced with less democratic forms. Either in the form of "regime change" or through the incremental erosion of "legitimate" civil rights.

When politicians succeed in misleading and confusing the public, they can be elected by promising to do things which, they (the politicians) know will not solve "mis-defined" social, political, economic or military problems. In this, elected politicians, with the support of an excited, misinformed and misdirected public, can get away with doing things which, they know, will either bring little/no improvement or will make matters worse.

Over-taxation has become one such problem. In the U.S., since 1980, every promised and delivered "tax-cut" has resulted in a major tax increase for the majority of Americans who receive a taxable "middle range" income($20,000 to $250,000/year) and who must actually work for it. In the U.S., today, a middle class living standard, most probably, requires an annual income in excess of $150,000. That is: if buying your own home is a financial and/or family goal.

For most legally "married" couples, this means both must be employed, on a full-time basis, outside the home. Until recently and, even now, their "married" marital status will cause them to pay $-thousands more, in income taxes, each year. From 1970-93, U.S. politicians succeeded is keeping these same, legally married couples unaware of this.

For years, as these same married couples discovered this and expressed their outrage, the politicians "pretended"; this was not the case, knew nothing of it or never "intended" to over-tax anyone. As the size of the "marriage pernalty" kept increasing!

Recommend you read, in sequence of posting, my 4 submissions on the U.S. Social Security System and how it is plundered to "over-fund" all other U.S. government programs. To the eventual and severe economic detriment of senior citizens who have only monthly Social Security payments with which to pay their bills. Not a sexy or glamorous issue to most young people who cannot yet evision themselves of ever being, old, unable to work and impoverished. After a lifetime of working and paying, in advance, for those same promised but now non-existent benefits.

Happier trails (Let's hope!),

Ed Bradley.

I am a novice as far as U.S politics is concerned.
But self-glorfication in the name of charity seems universal.
I am myself from a Tsunami hit country and cannot deny the misuse of generosity of the people.

You have indicated your interest in short fiction.
I'l be eagerly waiting for a post in that genre....

Posted: May 28, 2007

Author Comment:

ume:

Thank you for commenting.

Charity on the part of those who actually do the giving has my support and approval. Those providing the relief, directly, should be commended as well. Both are important and needed for a true expression of charity. Public support for charity, by celebrities, can be a good thing.

My argument is with those who use their celebrity to encourage the charity of others, compensate themselves by intercepting and keeping those same charitable funds and never make a real contribution of their own. They, at times, may deserve criticism but, seldom, condemnation. Unless they should compensate themselves, primarily and/or too much. With the intended persons, in need of the charity, thereby, getting little or nothing.

With respect to government officials, the issue is much more serious in that taxes are imposed on tax-payers. Government does not depend upon the voluntary "charity of others". As such, it is possible for government to impoverish many of it's own citizens. Even in a democracy.

In the example(s) given, by myself, American tax-payers have already paid for these same "charitable" benefits, in advance, of when they need to be provided. Those who wish to be charitable will then pay for these same benefits a 2nd time if they are to be provided. The "charity" is needed because some of the celebrity government officials, inviting the charity of others, have already intercepted the tax-dollars collected to pay for those same said benefits and mis-spent them on other things. And then try to mislead public opinion by not acknowledging their original fraudulent behavior and malintent. While still trying to make the public think they are truly concerned by trying to help some of those they have, previously, victimized.

Of course, in a democracy, this says nearly as much about the voting public as anyone. I guess.

Thank you again for your comments.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

"Middle class working Americans have already paid for these benefits."

Yes Mr B----I so agree with you---and that quoted paragraph says it all ! Wonderful editorial--I HOPE those who need to see it-- especially those you mentioned---take it seriously----the rich get rich and the poor get poorer---how unfair is that ?

Posted: Jun 2, 2007

Author Comment:

zephyrmail:

Thank you for your supportive remarks. If you have not done so already, recommend reading my 4 postings on the U.S. Social Security System. You will be amazed!

An incredibly small number(and percentage) of adult working Americans have any understanding of how it all works and how it continues to be plundered. Most especially so, since 1980. The vast majority of Americans believe the misleading statements (lies) of their "elected" federal officials who keep telling them the system is actually investing "surplus" Social Security tax revenues to fund future benefits. Not so! Not ever!

Many top executives at ENRON, TYCO, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, etc. have been convicted of fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, etc. and now have been or will be sent to prison for doing the exact same thing. A result of the "deregulation" of many crucial American industries and financial institutions and enterprises since 1980.

The list is endless. Seemingly! My response to WhiteWolf serves to explain why I bother to try to inform the American public. I keep thinking the problem/s will be fixed. If only enough members of the public could be enlightened and convinced. How innocent and naive of me!?! Don Quixote Lives!

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.


PS - contact: http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/TrustFund.shtml

Ed, Execellent piece! This is no lesser problem in countries such as Australia that have a multi-party system where one can at least vote for a party other than the two major parties. Major parties everywhere seem to have no end to methods of ensuring their power and control over the tax money of the working middle class. They do this, under our multi-party system by combining lesser parties into theirs or demonizing those minor parties who rail against them so you end up basically with only two parties anyway. So, even if the public sees through their hypocrisy, their connivering,their outright lies, a vote for a third party is annulled. Indeed, democracy is in jeopardy. However, if voices such as yours stop their cries of 'foul play' from the sidelines, all will truly be lost. Keep up the good fight. Annie

Posted: Jun 16, 2007

Author Comment:

Annie:

Thank you for your kind and complimentary remarks. They were insightful (inciteful too, perhaps?) as well.

Wasn't thinking of it quite in terms of (2) party system politics. Because your government is a "parliamentary" system, formal coalitions of 2 or more political parties are, sometimes, needed for governing. These coalitions are formed after the elections when a single party has not won a majority of the seats in Parliament. The coalition must comprise a majority of the seats. The coalition also names the Prime Minister as well as all other major government ministers.

In the U.S., the public votes, more directly, for the President although the Electoral College names the President after the public votes, directly, for the electors who pledge to cast their votes, in the Electoral College, for just one of the candidates. On a state by state basis, it is "winner take all" of all Electoral College voters (i.e. electors).

If, in the parliamentary system, a coalition cannot be formed, the government fails/falls and another election must be held. This process is repeated until a working majority coalition can be formed. If, at any time, a vote of Parliament should fail, this means that the majority coalition has failed and a new election must be held.

When studying this at LeMoyne College (1967-69), I thought the Parliamentary system was the more chaotic and the American system more sensible. As well as more democratic. My thinking about this has changed a great deal since 1985

In the U.S., 3rd or numerically minority parties(Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Right-To-Life, Green etc.), are used, mainly, to attract votes away from the opposing numerically majority party (Republican & Democrat) in the main/general election.

Each majority party tries, by stealth, to exert it's influence in choosing the candidate for each 3rd party so as to attract the voters to their candidate, when their candidate can be named the candidate for the 3rd party as well. Or to run a solitary candidate who does not have the endorsement of the opposing majority party. As you might expect: the corruption, illegality, propaganda, manipulations and machinations surrounding the nominating and primary election processes can become quite complicated and involved.

This stresses competition over cooperation which is more compatible with the "Parliamentary" system. While governing and during the election season.

In the UK (and, I suspect, in Australia), the election season lasts 6 to 9 weeks. In the U.S., the election season is much longer and keeps being extended so that, now, it seems to never end. In U.S. Presidential elections, this is now the case. Thanks, in large part, to the electronic mass media and the financial need for constant fund-raising. All funds raised are paid to the electronic mass media, the true 3d "uber" party, in exchange for political advertising.

Political publicity (i.e. free political advertising), provided by news interview programs and some, intermittent and disingenuous, political muck-raking and scandalizing is timed and played to maximize future fund-raising and political advertising revenue. And the public thinks, mistakenly, they are being kept well-informed or, at worst, just watching a viewer ratings war. Between TV news networks.

This stresses competition. In debate of issues. Cooperation seldom occurs. Except when the 2 Majority political parties can agree as to the best way(s) in which to plunder the public treasury and mislead the voting and tax-paying public as to how they are being victimized. By their own government.

Happier trails (I hope),

Ed Bradley.

ED: This whole idea about these crazy darn Stations is full of baloney. That idiotic Ronald Reagan owned half of them anyway through his Screen Actors Guild People. He controlled almost all of the Show making throughout the whoile world. His wife jane Wyman divorced him at the age of 80 for the second time. That also means that his wife, Nancy might have been married to him also at the same time. The son of a gun let all these Stations progrmming be controlled via some of his mentors.Now that he is not around the stupid people do all kinds of things. They rob banks, sue pople for not allowing them to have unlimited credit and I even found out that the idiotic wife wanted the US Treasury to pay for these people.

Fox owns 350 Stations Nationwide, each area owns several businesses and even some banks. They are also affiliated with the ABC Network.

Last night on the way home from Thanksgiving Dinner, seven times the radio broadcast in the car was broken into momentarily seven times. Fox here in Orange County plays all kinds of unscheduled programming, fast changes, dubbed scripts, and all kinds of other stuff that I don't like.

Comments on all this are appreciated.

Posted: Nov 23, 2007

Author Comment:

USGlen:

Thank you for reading and commenting.

You raised many interesting and important issues. With which I am most uninformed and uncertain. This means I cannot respond to them with as much pertinence and intelligence as I would or might like.

Unquestionably, great wealth is a fellow traveler of great influence. And vice versa. In the media and elsewhere. Many details have eluded my notice. So my ability to discuss many things, in depth, is limited. By my lack of personal knowledge. There is too much to know and not enough time or gray matter for a one individual to absorb it all.

But the idea of conducting highly publicized and phony charitable fund-raisers does anger me. Inasmuch as I have been a volunteer and professional charitable fund-raiser on several occasions. From 1976-1993.

Educational benefits (for college) for the children of disabled/deceased veterans and/or Social Security System members were abundant and adequate. Prior to 1985 when Republican U.S. President Reagan and the Democrat Party that controlled Congress cut benefits and raised taxes on the middle class American worker. Presumably to "save" the U.S. Social Security System.

People like Sean Hannity, who are paid $5+ million a year give me the impression they are doing 2 things. Promoting financially successful (for themselves) fund-raisers (in this case a series of country/western music concerts) by, falsely, claiming charitable intent. To fend off future and deserved income and Social Security tax increases for themselves and others earning in excess of either $100,000 (for a single wage earner) or $200,000 (for a legally married couple who both work). Not a pretty picture.

Happy Thanksgiving and Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.

Hi Ed,
I'm not sure what's going on.
Could you please write to me about which site asks for money for my work.
I am not aware of that and it disturbs me.
If i'ts a link I,m showing I will get rid of it you can be sure. I'm sorry this happened and I ASSURE YOU AGAIN I DID NOT KNOW.
zaida67@sympatico.ca
Sorry to write on here as There was no otherway to reach you.
BTW I found this writing og yours really interesting.
Bob

Posted: Dec 10, 2007

Author Comment:

ZAIDA:

The hyperlink is now different and takes the reader to a different website. Bypassing, no doubt, the website where a person is asked to pay by credit-card. I can only conclude you changed this. The reasons for your doing so, now, are obvious. To me, at least. You are too slick and someone with whom I do not wish to be associated. Your application to be a fan of mine will be deleted. At the same time, I will be removing myself as your one fan.

Under no circumstances will I be contacting you at your personal E-mail address.

Please do not read or comment on any of my other postings. Thank you.

Ed Bradley.

To Booksie Members and Readers:

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Bradley
To: Booksie: Sol Nasisi
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:44 PM
Subject: Fw:

Sol:

To further document the truthfulness of what I have asserted, here are the different hyperlinks ZAIDA posted at different times.

First posted:

http://geocities.com/djbhosting/MovieReeler

This hyperlink can be also be found on ZAIDA's application request, to me, to become one of my fans. So I won't be removing it for a while

Now posted:

http://www.writers-network.com/index.cgi?m=1&do=work&who=3466

Full Comment Information
Comment Given
On Date: Dec 10, 2007
Commentor Name: ZAIDA
On Title: TV Celebrity Grand-Standing For Charity. - Updated: September 24, 2007
In Genre: Editorial and Opinion
Comments Given: Hi Ed,
I'm not sure what's going on.
Could you please write to me about which site asks for money for my work.
I am not aware of that and it disturbs me.
If i'ts a link I,m showing I will get rid of it you can be sure. I'm sorry this happened and I ASSURE YOU AGAIN I DID NOT KNOW.
zaida67@sympatico.ca
Sorry to write on here as There was no otherway to reach you.
BTW I found this writing og yours really interesting.
Bob

Response from Author
On Date: Dec 10, 2007
Author Name: EdwardJBradleySr
Response Comments: ZAIDA: The hyperlink is now different and takes the reader to a different website. Bypassing, no doubt, the website where a person is asked to pay by credit-card. I can only conclude you changed this. The reasons for your doing so, now, are obvious. To me, at least. You are too slick and someone with whom I do not wish to be associated. Your application to be a fan of mine will be deleted. At the same time, I will be removing myself as your one fan. Under no circumstances will I be contacting you at your personal E-mail address. Please do not read or comment on any of my other postings. Thank you. Ed Bradley.

About | News | Contact | Your Space | TheNextBigWriter | Advertise

© 2007 TheNextBigWriter, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.Privacy Policy.


This is a most troubling matter.


Ed Bradley.

Posted: Dec 10, 2007



Add Your Comments:

Your Name:

Spam protection control::

© Copyright 2008 EdwardJBradleySr All rights reserved. EdwardJBradleySr has granted theNextBigWriter, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Booksie.com.

About | News | Contact | Your Account | TheNextBigWriter | Advertise

© 2008 TheNextBigWriter, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.