Monday, January 28

Corresponding Attorneys: Andrew Dwyer

Corresponding by e-mail with Andrew Dwyer, the employment litigation specialist who owns The Dwyer Law Firm, L.C.C. and is representing Steve Biegel in the Biegel vs. Dentsu case, reminded me why some reporters become cynical over time.

Many journalists are privately bombarded with persuasive babble, coercion, and spin, based on little more than the erroneous notion: if the reporter writes what we want, they are intelligent; if they do not, they are “morons.”

Journalists are not really paid enough to put up with it, but they do.

For those who have been following the suit, a District Court judge recently rejected Dentsu's motion for a summary judgment in the case of Steve Biegel v. Dentsu Holdings. It really wasn’t enough for me to post about, but I added it as an update to previous posts, preferring to wait to see how things plod along before considering it a topic again.

The reason Dwyer contacted me yesterday was to retract a comment that I left on a MultiCultClassics post, which had less to do about Biegel and more to do with some anti-Japanese sentiments that were anonymously left on my blog and elsewhere. Specifically, Dwyer claimed that I had “endorsed” the author, HighJive, whom he has a very low opinion of; that I called his client, Biegel, intolerant against Japanese and a “racist;” and that I might even qualify where I was in agreement with the other author and where I was not.

All of this comes from an attorney who previously told me “none of the posts on any of the blogs will ever have any relevance, except perhaps to support our claims of retaliation by Dentsu.” For someone who had expressly stated his low opinion of blogs in general and dismissed them, there seems to be ample attention paid to them outside the public eye as well as any comments that might accompany them.

No matter. Some might also consider it admirable that Dwyer is obviously looking out for his client. And given that, I did add clarification to the comment.

Unfortunately, the clarification was not good enough. Dwyer wanted a complete retraction and/or removal of the aforementioned comment, which I am not inclined to do because I did not call Biegel intolerant of Japanese.

In lieu of this, I suggested highlighting some of the more interesting points, especially since Dwyer said he would “love” to post his e-mail to me on the MultiCultClassic blog, but the author allegedly only allows comments that fit his agenda. Dwyer rescinded the idea, objecting to anything except the publication of his entire e-mail, going so far to suggest that if I only published portions of it, he would never correspond with me again. In other words, Dwyer is only inclined to allow public discourse to take place when it fits his agenda.

Around and around we go.

Without some compelling reason, I have no intention of publishing his e-mails as this blog tends toward being an op-ed on communication and not Dwyer’s forum for retaliation against the opinions of others. Besides, it would likely be embarrassing for him if I did. Ironically, this is why many journalists probably would publish them, or portions of them, as they feel fit.

So what is the takeaway? If you don’t like "the circus" atmosphere surrounding a subject, then don't create that atmosphere by lending heavy-handed e-mails to it. In this case, Dwyer continually risks more than he hopes to gain by writing e-mails that aim at little more than persuading people to do his bidding behind the scenes.

While it has no bearing on what my opinion might be in terms of the ongoing Biegel vs. Dentsu case, it certainly has a bearing on my opinion of the value of Dwyer’s correspondence. While he closed his last e-mail saying he wouldn’t waste his time thinking I am any different than the HighJives of the world, I couldn’t help but think he wasted mine given he opened with a similar statement.

Don’t they know anything? I might care what Dwyer thinks, but I really don’t care what he thinks about me. Most journalists are the same way. Some bloggers are too. And if he thought more about his communication, he might have better served himself and, who knows, perhaps his client too.

Instead, he did neither. There is no retraction. His points are not heard. And, on the contrary, the comment in question is more prominent than ever. With results like these, one can only hope his effort doesn’t end up in the billable column.



HighJive on 1/28/08, 2:24 PM said...

Dwyer spends too much time worrying about blogs. For the record, MultiCultClassics has never rejected any comment (besides spam). Ever. Rich, the comments you left at MultiCultClassics were very clear, and not even close to being negative towards Biegel’s cause. You have been extraordinarily thoughtful and open-minded in your opinions regarding the scenario—and isn’t that the basic point and purpose of blogs? Additionally, the belief that any blog is pro-Dentsu is astonishingly paranoid. As pointed out in a response at MultiCultClassics, one need only click on the “Steve Biegel” tag to read the past posts and get a sense on our true perspective. There is no pro-Biegel or pro-Dentsu slant; rather, it’s an observation on the tactics being utilized by all parties. With a smattering of snarky jabs.

Andrew Dwyer said...

Dear Mr. Becker:

The course of events were as follows:

1. You publicly attacked my client, accusing him of showing "intolerance," in the context of another post (that you endorsed) that had a thinly veiled charge of racism.

2. I privately emailed you, pointed out you had no factual basis for your attack, and asked you to retract it.

3. You refused, although you never explained what factual basis you had for accusing my client of intolerance.

4. We went round the mulberry bush on this, but only because you kept emailing me about it.

5. And now you attack me, publicly.

Sorry, I'm confused. What did I do wrong exactly?

Andy Dwyer

Rich on 1/28/08, 4:52 PM said...

Now that I have more time, here are my earlier comments, flushed out:

@HighJive I appreciate it. And I have no doubt that you would have published any comment submitted by Mr. Dwyer. I could see that based on many of the comments you let stand.

@Mr. Dwyer, I appreciate you will continue on press on point one, but I did no such thing. So why would I defend a position I did not take or retract a comment I did make?

As I said, I will be happy, however, to publish the correspondence, which was hardly private, since you have already given me permission to do so.

In addition, this is hardly an attack against you, and much more even handed view than your e-mails.

So we only went around and around because I kept e-mailing you? Given you initiated the e-mail and I ended it by not responding, I just don't see it.


Rich on 1/28/08, 7:06 PM said...

More Words:

"I'm part of the reality-based community. If I say something, I try to connect it somehow to the world that actually exists. If I get it wrong, I admit that I'm wrong. Your accusation that Biegel showed intolerance had no connection to reality. You just made it up. All your gyrations show nothing more and nothing less than you are unable to admit it when you make a mistake." — Andrew Dwyer, continuing

Since starting this blog, I have been wrong on occasion because I am human. On each and every one of those cases, I have clarified or corrected my error. This is not one of them where I am wrong because my comment is not an "accusation that Biegel showed intolerance."

Andrew Dwyer said...

Here is what Mr. Becker said:

"If we assume Biegel has a case on that particular issue [discrimination], he seemed to show equal intolerance to his employer."

Spin all you want; that's what Mr. Becker said.

Rich on 1/28/08, 9:59 PM said...

Mr. Dwyer,

There is a direct link to the post, where people can read the context of the quote and the clarification that did not meet your satisfaction without you're inserted words [].

I am well open to transparency and will be happy to present the full conversation for any who care to see it with exception to your very overt opinions about past Dentsu cases and additional allegations.


Rich on 1/28/08, 10:14 PM said...

Here is the original e-mail from Mr. Dwyer...

"Dear Mr. Becker:

Once again I a truly disappointed by the comments you have posted about the Biegel v. Dentsu case. You have tried to adopt the tone of a neutral observer, but it is increasingly ringing false.

I am referring to your latest post in response to a post by Highjive. In his post, Highjive picks up on an anonymous post made in November, in which the poster made comments about Japanese business culture. Highjive then implied rather strongly that Biegel himself was using bias against the Japanese in his case against Dentsu. Incredibly, you actually endorse this, and state Biegel "seemed to show equal intolerance to his employer."

This accusation is baseless. I urge you to reconsider your position and correct your public statement on this.

First, dealing with Highjive himself, he is anything but a neutral observer. If we assume he is not on the Dentsu payroll, then his repeated "essays" on this subject reveal some kind of odd obsession. After all, he cannot possibly have any first hand knowledge of any of the events or players involved. Yet, he has written a half-dozen essays on the case, all viciously attacking Biegel. Most recently, he posted 3 separate essays in the space of 24 hours, all attacking Biegel. In one essay, he announces that Biegel's case cannot possibly have any merit. Of course, since he has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case, he never explains how he formed this conclusion. Every posting Highjive has made displays a relentless bias.

(I am assuming you are intelligent enough to agree that a person with no knowledge of the facts and no legal training should hesitate to form such a fixed opinion about the merits of this case.)

At first, Highjive's latest attacks (including the one you endorsed) appear odd for their timing as well as their content. He used an anonymous post to attack Biegel, and further, an anonymous post that was made months ago. Why is Highjive suddenly going on the attack against Biegel for a two-month old, anonymous post? The answer, I think, is that Highjive is in high dungeon because he is upset about Biegel defeating Dentsu's motion to dismiss. That outcome was not a surprise to any intelligent observer (I think, frankly, that even Dentsu's own attorneys knew they were going to lose). But the night before the court hearing, Highjive posted another essay, boldly predicting that Biegel was going to lose. The next day, he wound up with egg on his face. Instead of admitting he was wrong (and instead of considering why he was so biased about this case), he dug up a two month old anonymous post, and used it to implicitly accuse Biegel of anti-Japanese bias. And then you -- the supposed neutral observer -- chime in with your agreement, and further accuse Biegel of "intolerance."

Ironically, while Highjive (and now you) accuse Biegel of anti-Japanese bias, it is Highjive himself who has repeatedly made outrageous, racist comments in his essays. In one essay, he characterizes Biegel's argument thus: "Evil Japanese Overlord Toyo Shigeta ruled with an iron fist, subjecting minions to excruciating cruelty." Of course, Biegel never said that. But Highjive did. In another essay, he actually is racist enough to call Biegel a "Ninja assasin." Really, the person who has been resorting to racist stereotypes for the past couple months has been Highjive.

Yet Biegel is accused of racism (or to use your loaded phrase, "intolerance"), toward his former employer. Why?

Surely you don't believe that suing a Japanese company reveals racism against people who are Japanese. Think how ridiculous that argument would be. If I sue a company owned by a woman, then I'm a misogynist. If I sue BET, then I'm a racist. If I sue a Catholic Diocese, then I'm anti-Catholic. The argument is juvenile.

Did we use this case, at any point, to bash the Japanese? Well, you've told me previously you had read the court file. If that's true, then you read the complaint. Other than referring to some physical locations which were in Japan (surely you are not going to accuse us of racism for geographical references), the one reference to Japan is found in paragraph 32. This recites that Shigeta told Biegel (and others) that having "double penetration" sex was a way in which Japanese businessmen commemorate business dealings. That's not an attack on Japanese culture. That's a recitation of something Shigeta said. And, incidentally, it is not something Shigeta has denied saying. Dentsu has had months to respond to this complaint. They could have easily filed a declaration by Shigeta denying he ever said this. They have not done so. In fact, prior to filing the lawsuit, in correspondence with Dentsu's former attorneys, their attorneys told me (in writing), that Shigeta did make the comments about "double-penetration" sex, but did so only as a "joke." Reciting truthfully that Shigeta made these comments, therefore, is not anti-Japanese. It is simply telling the truth.

Apart from that one reference to Shigeta's own words, we have not said anything at all Japan or the Japanese in any of our many, many court filings. If you claim otherwise, kindly back up your claim with evidence.

In sum, I find it incredible that you claim Biegel showed "intolerance" (to use your word) or "bias" (to use Highjive's word) in the case against Dentsu. We have done nothing of the sort.

One final point: It is not crazy to think that companies might have institutional, cultural biases in how they treat their employees. There are instances where evidence develops showing a culture of bias or insensitivity. I do not believe there is any rational reason to assume a Japanese company is somehow immune from any such bias. Nor, of course, is there any reason to assume a Japanese company is prone to such bias. [Removed portion of past Dentsu case.]

[More removed past Denstu cases.]

In sum, if you are the neutral observer you purport to be, then I think you should either retract your agreement with Highjive's piece, or come up with the evidence that supports your accusation of "intolerance" or "bias" on the part of Biegel.

Andy Dwyer

P.S. I'd love to post this on Highjive's blog, but he does not post comments that are inconvenient to his agenda."

For someone who claims I made a false accusation, one wonders who Dwyer has not accused, in err and often. I will post my initial response and the remaining tomorrow time permits.

Rich on 1/28/08, 10:20 PM said...

Here is my initial response:

Mr. Dwyer,

In considering your point, I submitted a clarification to my comment on the HighJive blog. It reads:

"In thinking about this issue given that a District Court judge rejected Dentsu's motion for a summary judgment in the case of Steve Biegel v. Dentsu Holdings, I thought I might add a quick clarification to my comment.

I was addressing any immediate revulsion to the acceptance of bathhouses and prostitution where it is legal, specifically, and not necessarily, any forced participation as Biegel’s case alleges. For example, I live in a state where prostitution is legal rural areas. That’s not my bag. However, far be it for me to judge others whose bag it might be."

As you already know, whether or not this comment may be published, is up to HighJive.

While I am largely neutral, which is not to say I don't have what some might call non-neutral opinions, the case has drawn some rather strong anti-Japanese sentiment, especially in the comments from time to time, which I mostly ignore with the exception that I sometimes comment in order to demonstrate I will not tolerate the vilification of people. HighJive seems to have wanted to tackle that issue head on. While it seems unlikely, though possible, that the comment he is referring to was someone close to the case, I did not address that, just as it seems unlikely, though possible, HighJive is close to the case. But I cannot speak for him nor do I want to.

What I can do, however, is answer some questions you have about my comment. Perhaps an example might demonstrate the difference.

Racism and intolerance are two very different things, as I am sure you know. Intolerance is the idea that Japanese bathhouses are vile or immoral (and thus those who participate in such activities are immoral) because the participants often, if not always, remove their clothes. I don't believe it is, though I appreciate there are both people who would agree and not agree with me. The same can be said about whether a married man may or may not engage in legal prostitution, though the point that Shigeta is married stood out in the brief, to me, if not in fact. Those decisions are personal and perhaps cultural.

My point is for you to say I am claiming Biegel is a racist is patently false, and I think you know that.

However, you may be interested to know that I do think some portions of the case, as outlined in the brief, seem to be more along the lines of cultural misunderstanding rather than blatant or even malicious sexual harassment, with the division falling somewhere in-between a group of people deciding to go to a bath house and one of those people being physically and/or emotionally blackmailed into participation against their will. That is the portion of the case that has yet to be proven and then decided upon by the court, with full consideration of eye witnesses as you mention.

As for the new information you have provided, I'll have to consider that. In the interim, while I won't republish your e-mail in entirety, I think you raise some interesting points and I will be happy to publish portions of it tomorrow, even referring the HighJive blog, unless you object. I am assuming this okay based on the P.S. which says you would love to publish your comments on the HighJive blog.

While I am not certain it would be tomorrow or Tues., I will send you a link immediately following. You can always offer comment on my blog. Generally, the only comments I remove are advertisements.

I will also likely address why I comment on people's blogs as well, and some information about the nature of blogging in general, including why there are often two threads of thought in providing observation. There are the facts. And there are opinions. Blogs tend to be, at least mine, more like Op-eds, where one presents facts and offers commentary around those facts. For example, the District Court judge rejecting Dentsu's motion for a summary judgment in the case of Steve Biegel v. Dentsu Holdings is a fact, which is why I included it as an update. Now, personally, I don't have an opinion on this because I have not read the motion to dismiss or the ruling to date, other than to consider this is unlikely to be settled quickly.

I mention this because it doesn't make sense to draw much attention to ... "[Section referencing past Dentsu case]" ... as you and I both know that the judge denied summary judgment simply because the judge seems to think there may be some merit to the case. But even so, that does not mean the judge felt that all of the points raised in the brief have equal baring in any decision.

That said, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Without question, I find there are many interesting elements to this case that move beyond the case itself. In considering these other issues, it's always important to separate the two, as one many not always have any baring on the other — until such time as a lawyer, such as yourself, link the two together in the the hope to benefit some other case.

All my best,

Rich on 1/28/08, 10:45 PM said...

Second e-mail from Dwyer:

"Respectfully, if I am going to say something, I'd prefer to speak for myself, rather than have someone else "filter" my comments. I said what I said. If you want to publish the entire email, along with your response, fine. But I do object to publishing part of what I said. Frankly, I am pretty fed up with people in this circus publishing a "version" of what we actually said, which then leads to a series of distortions of our actual position. That has happened repeatedly.

Given that our country has a First Amendment, I cannot prevent you from doing what you are planning to do. However, I will certainly never communicate with you again, if I know that you will take a portion of my communication and publish it in truncated form. You are not my editor, with all due respect.

As for the underlying substance of Highjive's post, and your response: (a) you agreed with Highjive completely, and did not express any reservations about what he said; yet (b) no one pointed out that Biegel has not expressed any anti-Japanese sentiments; and (c) the clear tenor of Highjive's blog, and your response, is to suggest that Biegel is guilty of racism. Indeed, Highjive's "essay" begins by saying racism (directed at people who are Japanese) is what is "festering" beneath the claims in the case.

If you did not agree with that, then you should have expressly said so. So far, you have not.

As for your attempt to accuse Biegel of "intolerance," again, what are you referencing? Nowhere in the complaint (or anywhere else in our court submissions) do we accuse anyone of being "immoral" or "vile," and nowhere do we pass judgment on people who decide in their free time to attend brothels or bathhouses. We do object to being forced/duped into participating in these activities (as part of a work outing), where the employee is required to take off his clothes in front of his boss, and/or engage in sexual activity. This suit would have never been filed if Shigeta on his own went to a brothel or a bathhouse. The problem occurred because of his decision to force a subordinate employee to participate.

That's not intolerance. That is simply asking not to be subjected to activities that are sexual in nature, or that require nudity. Frankly, the only reason we are having this discussion is that my client is being held to a double-standard because he is male. If my client were female, no one would be suggesting that it would be ok to be ask to undress in front of a boss, or to engage any form of sexual activity (legal or otherwise) as part of a job outing.

In sum, the bottom line is that you accused Biegel of "intolerance," and you had no basis for doing so. You still have not retracted your accusation. This is not about my email or your cultural musings. This is about the fact that you made an accusation against someone in a very public setting without any basis for doing so, and yet you still fail to retract your accusation even after you have been called on it.

Andrew Dwyer"

Rich on 1/28/08, 10:46 PM said...

My response:

"Mr. Dwyer,

I was going to address the idea that "Biegel has not expressed any anti-Japanese sentiments" in my post re: this subject. But since you are making demands in its presentation, I am at a loss. I could offer to write my piece as I feel fit and include your e-mail in entirety in the comment section, but no, I am not inclined to give your e-mail a forum as a post on our blog.

So let's be clear. Are you demanding a retraction under threat of legal action?

Thank you,

Rich on 1/28/08, 10:47 PM said...

Third e-mail from Dwyer:

"This is ridiculous. I am not threatening legal action. I am talking to you as one human being to another. If I said in a public setting, "Richard Becker is intolerant of Catholics," and I had no basis for saying so, and you pointed that out to me, I would have enough integrity to admit I was wrong, and I would take back what I said. Not because I would be afraid of being sued, but because I have enough self-respect to not want to persist in publicly attacking a person I don't know without a basis for doing so. I have privately pointed out to you why you had (and still have) no basis for accusing Biegel of intolerance, and no basis for expressing unqualified agreement with Highjive's outrageous post. I do not bother, frankly, talking privately to people like Highjive, because he is patently biased and ignorant. I gave you the courtesy of a private, and carefully reasoned attempt to get you to acknowledge your error, because I have persisted in the assumption that you are not utterly biased and not a moron. Only you can prove one way or the other if my assumption is correct.

Andrew Dwyer"

Rich on 1/28/08, 10:47 PM said...

My response:

"Mr. Dwyer,

You are taking my statement out of context and loading it with inferences that were not there. I did not say Biegel was intolerant against Japanese. I said:

"I felt the same way. It doesn't make sense how some have used the Biegel case to vilify Japanese companies and culture while part of Biegel's case relies on faith-based discrimination."

This statement has nothing to do your client. I also said ...

"If we assume Biegel has a case on that particular issue, he seemed to show equal intolerance to his employer."

There is no error, though I respect how you might think so. That is fair in that neither the employer or employee seemed to consider what may be cultural differences. If they both did, it would seem to me that there would not be case today. If I were to withdrawal it simply based on your definition of it, then it would be an admission that I did call Biegel intolerant when I did no such thing.

Don't mistake me here, Mr. Dwyer, if I felt that I did indeed err as you claim, I would be happy to retract it. But on the contrary, in reading through your correspondence, it seems to me much of your tone is accusatory, now going so far as to suggest if I don't see it your way, I am this or that.


Rich on 1/28/08, 10:50 PM said...

Fourth e-mail from Dwyer:

"Cultural differences? You're kidding, right? First, how do you know what my client did or did not consider about "cultural" differences when Shigeta told him to "get naked"? Second, what "cultural difference" are your referencing? My client did not want to strip in front of his boss, and he did not want to have sex with a prostitute. His reluctance to participate should have been the end of the discussion. Frankly, he should have never been put in the situation to begin with. I don't care what anyone's "culture" is. Employers should not be imposing on their employees in this fashion at all. I find it really hard to swallow that you believe this is about cultural differences. In the modern, industrialized, civilized world, there should be no debate: employers should not take their employees to brothels, or tell them to "get naked." I would think that Japanese and American people alike would be horrified by a boss who compels his subordinates to take off their clothes or engage in sexual activity of any kind. If you think otherwise, then obviously you (and not Biegel) are the one harboring strange ideas about Japanese culture.

As far as whether I loaded your statements with inferences, please give me a break. Highjive's essay threw charges of the worst kind of anti-Japanese racism. You said you agreed with him (without any qualification), and then followed it by saying Biegel showed intolerance toward his employer. The only way to interpret that statement is that you were accusing Biegel of being intolerant toward his Japanese employer -- intolerant because he did not want to have sex with a prostitute or take off his clothes. But if there was any ambiguity in your comments, it would have been really easy to clear it up -- you could just admit that you have no evidence that Biegel ever showed intolerance toward anyone.

Like I said when I started this discussion earlier today, I am finding it difficult to see you as a neutral observer. If you dislike that characterization, honestly, that's just too bad. I won't waste any more of my time thinking you are any different than the Highjives of the world.

Andrew Dwyer"

Rich on 1/28/08, 10:57 PM said...

At this point I broke the correspondence with Mr. Dwyer, until e-mailing today with an link to this post as promised.

"With that said, here is my take on your correspondence. I respected your wishes and did not include portions of it. Nor did I focus considerable attention on your client, given I am largely neutral toward the case until some additional evidence surfaces.

You may not believe that, as you have made clear, I really don't care what you might think of me as I am sure you don't care what I might think of you. I am sure based on your considerable wins you are a fine lawyer, but your communication skills as they relate to the media and bloggers seem to lack, in my opinion. And as a result, that is why you might feel put off by what people write. Good day."

That was the extent of it. There's not much more I can add. Other than I did make a mistake. My mistake was engaging Mr. Dwyer with the assumption that he would be reasonable, especially given I treated him fairly in re: to the Steve Hall e-mail.

Go ahead Mr. Dwyer, feel free to continue to your assault. I won't stop you.

Rich on 1/28/08, 11:08 PM said...


I think we are different, but not as Mr. Dwyer defines it. His meaning seems to conjure ideas of better than. I don't feel my blog is better than any other. Much like people, there are a whole lot of different blogs and none of them is better than. Not really.

Keep doing what you are doing. Mr. Dwyer's comments about your blog, which I am very unhappy to have post here, absolutely have no basis in reality. Feel free to hold him on correcting himself in saying you would never publish his comments. He is someone who prides himself on correcting his mistakes, I am told.

All my best,

HighJive on 1/28/08, 11:10 PM said...

For the record, MultiCultClassics has been commenting on the Japanese-bashing in this case since the bashing began (not completely sure, but it might have first surfaced in an Adrants post—again, view the MultiCultClassics posts for proof). The bashing has even become a theme in our observations. We will make one admission, although it technically does not affect the posts at MultiCultClassics: When the latest news of the judge nixing Dentsu’s attempt to toss the case was released last week, we did a google search for other details. Rich’s November blog post came up, and guess what? We didn’t even notice the date. We were simply responding once again to the Japanese-bashing that this case has inspired. We have not accused Biegel of instigating it; the worst we have done is state that it would be unfortunate if he did. Sorry that Dwyer misinterprets our rants. If he visited MultiCultClassics regularly (and it’s highly unlikely he ever will), he would know that we have consistently voiced opinions on ad industry incidents involving racism, bias and discrimination since 2005. It’s nothing new for us. He and his client are not special. They are not being exclusively targeted. Their situation has simply fallen into our area of focus. Yes, we predicted Biegel would lose his case. We still believe he will. But so what? Our prediction doesn’t really matter. It will probably not be held up in court. We’re no different than nearly everyone else who has been reading about this saga and occasionally discussing it around the water cooler. Hey, we’ve got ideas surrounding Wesley Snipes, Britney Spears and OJ Simpson too. If Dwyer wants to point out an obsessive individual in this story, he might consider looking in the mirror. All the best.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Dwyer certainly has a lot of time on his hands. Unlike when this thing broke, when he was all over the press, he isn't talking to ADWEEK or Advertising Age these days...publications that truly count when it comes to the audience that his client will want to reach if he wants to continue working in advertising.

Jericho Returns on 1/29/08, 10:28 AM said...

If I ever need a lawyer I sure know who not to call.

Anonymous said...

Everytime Dwyer opens his mouth or hits a keyboard, it confirms the suspicion that he's in way over his head.

In that respect, he and Biegel are perfect for each other.

apollo 13 said...

Okay, people, I am getting tired of this semantic wrestling match with the Biegel/Dwyer situation, and find it incredibly pathetic that some of you spend countless hours blogging about something that (A) will have no impact on your lives at all, (B) you only have fragmented information about, and (C) is impacting your credibility. As a linguist, I conducted an informal semantic analysis to find that the same words and concepts come up repeatedly, and as a result these blogs are now quite predictable; you are losing your audience and your credibility as informed blog facilitators. Here's a novel idea: give Dwyer and Biegel their legal privacy and find another playground now. This is getting old and redundant, and you made your points. Let them fight their legal battle, which has nothing to do with you, and will not impact you or your families (as far as I can infer). With that "said", have some respect for the legal process and find someone else to harass, jab, and pass judgment against. By the way, in my opinion, a decent blog thread leaves me with something to ponder, which NONE of these comments has accomplished.

Rich on 1/31/08, 10:34 PM said...

Thanks for your comment, though it's inaccurate.

I had no intention of writing about the case until it was much further along, and Dwyer contacted me with demands. This post isn't even about the case, it's about poor communication practices.

Also, the outcome of this case could very well set precedent that will impact our lives.

All my best,

apollo 3 said...

Rich, yes, I agree, the outcome WILL set a precedent for the businessperson in dealing with situations, such as Biegel's, that, unfortunately, pervade the fabric of the business world. Thank you, Rich, for bringing value and credibility of this case to the culmination of this blogfest.

Anonymous said...

does anyone else think that apollo 13/3 is the only one truly obsessed with discussing this case? apollo 13 might also consider that, as many here are professional writers, it’s very obvious to us who is likely typing these comments. the writing style, with its penchant for listing statements and displaying an arrogant attitude, has been consistent across numerous blogs. are you doing multi-daily technorati and google searches on yourselves? it’s super bowl weekend. try to enjoy the game, dude.

apollo 13 said...

Anonymous, I wouldn't call it an obsession with the case. I had an experience very similar to Biegel's, but did not have the courage to pursue it legally. There are many people who I know of that had similar experiences. So, in place of the word "obsessed", I would rather say "highly curious" as to how this unfolds. Only if you have walked in someone's shoes should you be free to judge. Quite frankly, if I had someone on my team like Mr. Dwyer, who is willing to go to great lengths, such as blogging, to advocate for his client, I may have pursued my situation with confidence. Keep moving forward, Mr. Dwyer!

As for the other references in your previous post:
1. I am not part of a daily technorati (have written 4 posts in total)
2. My "arrogance" originates from reading blogs that I believe are misrepresentations of what people consider "truth".
3. I am definitely not a "dude"; actually, a "dudette".
4. I always have a good weekend, but thanks for the well wishes.

Apollo 13

Rich on 2/4/08, 8:52 PM said...

Apollo 13,

It is not "only if you have walked in someone's shoes should you be free to judge" ... it's more like "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

For everyone else. Great game, eh?



Anonymous said...

apollo 13,

First of all, dude works for both genders. It has for years.

Second, if you’re female, then it’s really unlikely that you had an experience similar to Biegel’s. The man has flipped the script on nearly every level imaginable. And that’s why his success with the case is really unlikely too.

If you had someone on your team like Mr. Dwyer, and you had pursued litigation, you would currently be ruing the day you had ever met him. Fortunately, you didn’t go that route.

Post a Comment


Blog Archive

Google+ Followers

by Rich Becker Copyright © 2010 Designed by Bie Blogger Template