Richard Arnold Responds
scott evans
*******
To Jonathan Tham, Thor Iverson, Diane Duane, Tim Lynch et al:
Although I'd sworn I'd never get back onto the nets again, recent postings
have forced me to do so. However, before I get into any specific
responses to the above, let me bring some of you up to speed.
The non-incident being referred to in recent postings allegedly occurred
at Creation's New York Thanksgiving show last year. Jonathan Tham asked
me about the history of myself and Peter David while I was on stage doing
a presentation, and we continued the conversation up in the dealer's room
where I was sitting behind a table with a couple of friends visiting from
Australia. I tried to give Jonathan a thumbnail sketch of the history of
Gene's problems (yes, *GENE's* problems) with the books and the studio,
and brought up Gene's difficulties with Diane's book, _The Romulan Way_,
as an illustration. I did not attack Diane, I did not defame Diane, and I
did not fabricate any details about the situation with the book. The
truth is simply this ... Gene felt that Diane's book was not a "Star Trek"
book at all but something completely unrelated, with McCoy thrown in in
order to sell it as a "Star Trek" story. I totally agreed with Gene. If
you remove the character of McCoy and take off the cover and change th
Gene created "Star Trek" (despite the outrageous untruths currently being
spread by certain revisionist authors), and it was insulting to him when
Diane and Peter stated in the forward to _The Romulan Way_ that "... they
were never Romulans." Gene told Paramount's Merchandising and Licensing
people that he didn't want the book published, and was told that it was
too late. He asked that they remove the name "Star Trek" from the cover,
and was told that it was also too late. He asked to have Rihannsu changed
to Romulan throughout the book, and again was told that it was too late.
These memos are in Gene's home files, and presumably are in Paramount's
files as well.
Now to the present situation. To Jonathan Tham ... now do you understand
what I meant about it being dangerous to even mention my name on the net?
I appreciate your trying to straighten this out, but in my case it's not
likely that the 'R'Nold' haters will ever change their tune. Heaven
knows, I gave Tim Lynch every opportunity to determine the truth, and
instead he grasped at straws to find evidence to damn me, and supported
his hatred with lies told to him by individuals at the studio (impartial
my ass!).
To Thor Iverson ... I don't recall meeting you, nor do I recall seeing
your name associated with "Star Trek" or Paramount, at least not in the
last twenty years. On what, may I ask, do you base your personal attack
on me? Is it based on the 'information' you've gleaned from this forum?
To Diane Duane (I don't include Peter Morwood as I don't recall him ever
getting involved in this) ... possibly your attorney didn't tell you that
I stated that I'd be happy to go to court over your baseless claim of
defamation. I didn't say to Jonathan Tham what he thought I'd said,
although I can see where he could have easily misunderstood my comments.
However, as he neither recorded our *private* conversation or took notes,
it is not to me but to him that you should have addressed your threats.
*I* did not post anything on the net, nor did I *ask* to have anything
posted. In fact, I strongly advised Jonathan *not* to post anything!
However, he didn't take my advice, and posted an article that was less
that accurate.
When this whole mess started up, I asked a friend to contact Jonathan
(since I am not on the net), in the hopes that he would recall that I had
not gone after you as an individual but had simply stated Gene's clear
objections to your book. His followup posting was not quite what I would
have wanted, but he did his best to straighten out a mess he had
unintentionally created. I was not restating anything. I was not trying
to avoid a lawsuit (I would love the opportunity to drag you, Paramount,
Pocket Books etc. into court and finally get the entire truth out, but no
one would profit from that, would they?). I did not start this mess, nor
did I have any desire to get involved in it. This started with Jonathan,
and I felt that it should end with him.
Diane, I have never doubted that you or Peter worked hard writing _The
Romulan Way_. However, your are obfuscating the issue, which is whether
or not I had said anything defamatory about you. I had not, and no parade
of witnesses testifying to your hard work on the book would have made any
difference in that regard in a court of law, since none of them were
present at the time that Jonathan and I were discussing this. Anything
tht they would have had to say would have been completely irrelevant.
I have made no retraction ... I stand by what I originally stated to
Jonathan (although he misstated it in his report)) and will continue to
state, and that is that Gene felt that your novel was not a "Star Trek"
novel but one that used his creation in order to be sold. That was his
opinion, to which he was entitled, and something with which I agree, to
which *I'm* entitled.
To Timothy W. Lynch (Cornell's First BA in Astronomy ... is that some sort
of qualification for the defamation you have been heaping on me?) ... I
never lied to you, Tim, although others certainly have, and you have been
used by them in all of this. When the truth finally comes out, you'll
have a lot of explaining to do. As for your use of the term 'unconscious
bias', look in the mirror.
To the rest of you reading this ... I learned something interesting once
from William Shatner ... when you work in this business (unlike the
authors of the books and most of the rest of you, *I do*!) and are
attacked, you have two choices: you ignore it, in which case you are
obviously guilty, or you address it, in which case you are obviously
guilty. I've tried both, and Bill was absolutely right. As Gene said,
shortly *before* he died, it would be best if I simply ignored all of
this. I'm afraid that, as good as that advice was, I don't have the
fortitude to do so. When a stranger attacks me from behind, I find I must
turn around, face them, and defend myself.
Richard
********
I'm rather curious about something myself. When Diane mentioned
something to the effect that Richard is not part of "our community", to
which community was she referring? Richard has had and *still does* have
more to do with Star Trek than anyone on the net. Since I accompany him
to Paramount studios about once a week, I can speak to this subject. You
see, since lots of people have called him an out-and-out liar (which is
ludicrous), he usually brings someone along with him so anything that
comes up (like how important he is) won't just boil down to Richard's
word against someone else's.
I'll give an example...a couple of weeks ago, Ron Surma was trying to
cast the three original series Klingons Kor (John Colicos), Kang
(Michael Ansara), and Koloth (William Campbell). The *only* person who
knew where to reach Bill Campbell was Richard. Thanks to him, "Blood
Oath" (I think it's called) was made possible.
When I first was reading the net in 1991, I was shocked at how harshly he
was being attacked. I couldn't believe that someone would do the things he
was being accused of. What did I do? I went to his office and met him. I
was expecting the worse, but was more than pleasantly surprised. He cares
about Star Trek (Gene's Star Trek) more than anybody, and since that time
we've become good friends. The same can be true for many thousands of fans
around the world. I can only ask that the net.readers do not make hasty
judgments until they've met him, too (he does conventions maybe 3 weekends
out of 4; he's hard to miss).
Scott Evans
UCLA Astronomy
Thor Iverson
I'm sure there's absolutely no point in responding to this, but what the
hell...
>As Richard has no access to the net, I'm posting this for him.
Hmph. Richard appears to have plenty of access to the net--else how would
he know about this? Whether he reads it directly or gets it second hand
is irrelevant.
>To Jonathan Tham, Thor Iverson, Diane Duane, Tim Lynch et al:
Why _thank_ you, Richard--while unworthy, I'm extremely honored that you
included my name with the others you've listed...though modesty demands that
I advise you to put Diane's name _before_ mine.
[Richard says]
>To Thor Iverson ... I don't recall meeting you, nor do I recall seeing
>your name associated with "Star Trek" or Paramount, at least not in the
>last twenty years.
My God, we _are_ paranoid, aren't we? Let's see--over the past few years,
I would guess there have been in the neighborhood of 500 posts to the various
Star Trek newsgroups relating to you. Unless my memory is faulty, I recall
posting _anything_ containing your name only twice. Now I simply _can't_
believe that my posts were so vicious, so well-written, so _pointed_ that
you felt it necessary to include me with Diane and Tim, who have been far
more verbose in their comments about you. You're quite right, Richard--
I'm "nobody"--at least, nobody that you need to be concerned with in any
professional circumstance. So I wonder--why, out of all the venom directed
your way in this forum, did you choose to respond to mine by name? Given my
position, my opinion of you cannot possibly matter one way or the other. So
I must admit that I'm forced to choose between two possible conclusions:
one, that you simply cannot tolerate any sort of criticism whatsoever and
have an almost desperate need to lash out at people who _do_ criticize you;
or two, that I was hitting rather close to the mark. Either way, Richard,
I don't see much reason to re-evaluate my opinion of you.
>On what, may I ask, do you base your personal attack on me? Is it based on
>the 'information' you've gleaned from this forum?
No. And your implied dismissal is accurate--I have _no_ personal experiences
with you that have led me to my conclusions about your character. I have
based my opinion of you on the words of several people that, over the course
of a few years, have proven themselves worthy of my respect--one of whom is
Diane Duane, with whom I have had a rather lengthy correspondence about this
matter. In short, Richard, I have made a choice as to which "side" to
believe--and I have chosen hers, because our contact has led me to the feeling
that I can trust what she says; and because this contact has deconstructed
our relationship of celebrity/fan and made it a bit more personal--at least,
as personal as one can be from a few pieces of email each week.
But even if I didn't have Diane's word to compare with yours, Richard, I
would still tend not to believe that you can be trusted in _any_ way. Your
actions in this matter, and in others, have been juvenile and petty (even
by your _own_ account of events), and engender absolutely no respect whatsoever
from me. The way you choose to interact with people--choosing middle-men and
intermediaries to carry your message--raises the suspicion that you are
unwilling to face your dectractors in person. Plus, as you have so masterfully
done in this message, it gives you the opportunity to claim that the
messengers were mistaken--thus providing a safe "out" for you in case things
get too hot. Furthermore, you take this to a _new_ extreme in this message
when you first suggest that Johnathan Tham was mistaken in nearly every
respect, then tell us that you tried to keep whatever you _did_ say off these
newsgroups, and finally suggest to Diane Duane that _Johnathan_ should have
been the target of her legal threats. In other words, Richard, you've made
Johnathan your scapegoat. I have absolutely _no_ respect for these tactics,
and no respect for anyone who employs them. Is that clear?
Many, many people have recounted negative experiences with you. Some have
told of positive experiences. I don't subscribe to the notion of quantity
equating with truth--the number of stories about you is not enough to make
me believe them. Hell, I'm willing to give Tonya Harding the benifit of the
doubt, despite my deep misgivings. But when I consider the _source_ of the
stories, and weigh my respect for the sources with my respect for you, which
is nonexistent _just_ from your own actions (not as recounted by anyone else),
I cannot help but believe that there must be at least a kernel of truth in
them. Which, of course, does not improve my image of you.
I don't think you're rotten to the core, Richard--though others might disagree.
I _do_ think that you're incredibly narcissistic, adolescent and paranoid, lack
enough self-confidence to stand up for _yourself_ without the aid of third
parties and without invoking the dead (wielding Gene's name like a bludgeon,
by the way), and rather a pathetic individual--which wouldn't be so bad if
you weren't such a relentlessly unsympathetic representative of yourself.
To put it in terms that Star Trek fans can relate to: you are without honor.
Incidentally, I'm curious as to why you would so earnestly suggest that
Jonathan should keep your conversation private, if you indeed had said
nothing defamatory. Certainly you _know_ that the level of negativity
on these newsgroups toward you could hardly be affected either way by the
public airing of your statements. Or if you did _not_ know this, then
why didn't you post a reply after Johnathan's initial post? I _know_ you're
going to claim that you didn't see these posts until now, or that you were
simply too busy--neither of which I would believe--for if you were actually
too busy, you wouldn't have posted a reply at all; and if you hadn't read
the posts about you until now, you were incredibly nonchalant in the face
of Diane's threatened legal action.
>To Diane Duane (I don't include Peter Morwood as I don't recall him ever
>getting involved in this)
This is the most ridiculous thing you've yet said. No, Richard, Peter Morwood
isn't involved at all...he only CO-AUTHORED THE BOOK. Please--do you really
think that Diane took this action upon herself, keeping it a secret from the
man that she shares a marriage, a home, and part of her written output with?
Perhaps you think that Peter was unaware of these difficulties? Perhaps you
think that Peter disagreed with Diane's actions? I'd like to see you make
this case.
[now back to Scott's personal comments]
>You see, since lots of people have called him an out-and-out liar (which is
>ludicrous), he usually brings someone along with him so anything that comes
>up (like how important he is) won't just boil down to Richard's word against
>someone else's.
That may be, but didn't you read the message you just relayed to us? In it,
Richard _repeatedly_ denies having ever said anything that Johnathan Tham
said that he did, denies making any statements that _anyone_ has heard that
could be construed as defamatory towards Diane Duane, and makes a special
point of noting the lack of recording devices in his meetings with Johnathan
Tham. Sounds to _me_ like he's deliberately making it "his word against
someone else's." Unless you carry a tape recorder with you whenever you
accompany him, I have to wonder how you (or he) can think this makes any
kind of difference. If recorded testimony is to be the only evidence Richard
will accept, then (by his _own_ standards) the presence of witnessnes is
irrelevant. Seems to be an inconsistency here.
And Scott, you have my permission to relay my comments to Richard--as I
intend to relay _his_ comments to Diane Duane (as soon as her Internet
connection is back up, that is--or failing that, by old-fashioned mail).
Thor Iverson tive...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Author, Led Zeppelin FAQL I don't _have_ "humble opinions"...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_Entertainment Weekly_ is _not_ allowed to reprint anything I've written.
Janis Maria C. C. Cortese
am of your Napoleonic needleheaded little delusions that demand your
creating a furor of controversy about yourself to the end that you can
actually convince yourself that you have AMOUNTED to something or that
most people aren't entirely ignorant of your existence. Will you please
find something to do with your time? Pottery? Rug hooking? Needlepoint?
Anything? Please?
Now I wonder how long it is until MY character is defamed all over the
United States as the Slut of Usenet, with whom Richard Himself has slept
several times . . . Yeeeeech.
Regards,
Janis the net.proud.hussy
Janis Cortese || President and Founder: SEFEB, and The ||
cor...@netcom.com || Society of People Who Would Love to ||
Net Loudmouthed Bitchy || Shove a Stick Up Rush Limbaugh's Ass; ||
Renaissance Woman and || and Member of The Star Trek Ladies' ||
General All-Around Hussy || Auxiliary and Embroidery/Baking Society ||
=====================================================================||
I used to be a bitch and just thought it was my problem. ||
Now, I've learned to make it everyone else's problem, too. ||
========================Un! Znqr lbh ybbx!============================
Timothy W. Lynch
following statement I made to Scott Evans:
tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>sc...@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (scott evans) writes:
>>I'll give an example...a couple of weeks ago, Ron Surma was trying to
>>cast the three original series Klingons Kor (John Colicos), Kang
>>(Michael Ansara), and Koloth (William Campbell). The *only* person who
>>knew where to reach Bill Campbell was Richard. Thanks to him, "Blood
>>Oath" (I think it's called) was made possible.
>"Only"? This, of course, means that Bill Campbell has no agent and is not a
>member of SAG -- the latter of which, incidentally, would make him unable to
>take the part anyway. No one has ever denied that Richard is very
>resourcesful and very useful, Scott. Your elevation of him to indispensable,
>however, is simply silly. Richard was the first and most convenient person
>who could get hold of Campbell; but give any thinking person three days and a
>phone directory and we could all find him.
I received a phone call today from Richard, who informed me in no uncertain
terms that Campbell was *not* reachable through SAG.
I'm sure Richard won't be surprised to hear that I decided to check for myself.
However, he was absolutely right; though they had a William Campbell (not
William O., who played Okona and "The Rocketeer") listed, there was no
information listed with his name.
I still find the statements that "Richard was the *only* one" and that
without him, "Blood Oath" would not have been possible to be something of a
stretch, but they are now perfectly normal hyperbole rather than flat-out
ludicrous.
To Richard, I offer my apologies on that score, just as I did when making an
error in my followup interview piece. 'nuff said.
Tim Lynch
Kevin Lee Blackwell
read in Cinemafantastique or somewhere that he was fired by
Rick Berman almost immediately after Roddenberry died; now, it
seems like he still has a fairly prominent if not Paramount
position.