Yes, every argument has two sides. But not all sides are equally valid or
truthful. If they were, then you could never decide between A and B. If I
say that the Germans won WW2, and you say they lost WW2, they are different
points of view...but one is slightly more valid than the other.

What is stated in the magazine is what happened. There are no subjective
characterizations here, those are the specific events which have been
corroborated now by a number of people. Should the B5 magazine put in things
that we know to be utterly and totally false? For instance:

>For example, a key element in Claudia's contract "dispute" (for lack
>of a better word) was that because the show was not being renewed par
>se and was in fact being transferred to TNT, she was asked to give up
>residuals for those shows - a "pay cut" to use her words.
> I expect
>such a critical detail to be mentioned when presenting an unbiased
>article on just why she did not renew her contract. Instead, the
>article completely failed to mention it, choosing instead to mention
>that she passed on renewal of her contract without giving any reason
>why.

Let me put this to you in the most straightforward way I can: this is an
absolute and total fabrication, and has been from day one. No actors have
been asked to give away their residuals, and no actor was asked to take a pay
cut. It never, ever, ever happened.

What did happen was this: there are different formulas for residuals in
network, syndication, and cable TV. The network formula is the largest fee
per rerun, followed by syndication and then cable. In cable, AS PER THE
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD rules, the amount an actor is paid over double-scale is
credited against the domestic residuals (also not foreign residuals) in much
the way an advance is paid against a book. When that amount is earned out,
the residuals begin again. This is standard cable residuals. So a) nobody
was giving away residuals, and b) all of the actors received their pay
increases this season as per their contracts. Every one of them.

So you ask me why that wasn't mentioned. Because it is simply, flatly, and
categorically and PROVABLY untrue. It's not a matter of presenting another
opinion. It's not true. Period. Never happened.

As for not explaining why she chose not to re-up for S5, that would have
required subjective implication, and she never TOLD us. She simply allowed
the offer from WB to lapse, let the contract expire, so we had no tie on
her..and she left.

Yes, she asked for fewer episodes, but to be paid for all of them, and that was
expressed to me prior to her passing on the offer. But nobody ever said,
"Okay, you didn't give us X, so we're passing." They just let it pass without
comment. TO THIS DAY they have not communicated to us their specific
reasoning. Should the magazine speculate on what's going on inside the heads
of other people?

>It also failed to mention Claudia's offer to work 18 of the 22
>scheduled episodes

She didn't offer that. She offered to work in 18 but get paid for 22, which
constitutes a pay raise, which violates our contracts with all the other
actors. Again, why should we put something in that is not true?

>and the fact that she had been dissatisfied with
>her role, feeling it had afforded her little opportunity to develop.

Again, she never said that to us, or said it to the magazine.

>t is also on record that Claudia
>said she was never given the option of working and being paid for 18
>episodes, an option she said she would have been satisfied with.

Where is that on record? It was certainly never expressed to us during all of
this when it was going on. And she has never said, in the post you mention,
that she would do 18 episodes for only 18 episodes pay. Check the original
post. It's not there.

You say that her POV was not represented. Ours was not represented on her
websites (any of them). I imagine therefore that you have sent email to those
sites, and to Claudia, protesting that as well.

There's a kind of mentality that says that you can't make any kind of choice
between two arguments, that all sides are equally valid. But that's not true.
Some statesments are more valid than others IF they can be proven. Every
single statement we have made has been proven, and verified by cast members,
and even those at the Blackpool convention who were there as fans. There is
not one shred of evidence to back up the statements that pay cuts were asked
for, or residuals were given away, both of which would violate SAG rules and
are simply untrue.

If something is a fabrication, should it be printed "as-is?" Or do you post
rebuttals to it within the same article, and get into a brawl in the magazine?
Or do you simply state the absolute bare facts, without characterization, and
let what's *provable* stand on its own?

That latter approach was the only way to go.



jms

>Joe can you confirm whether or not it is a copy of the WB press
>release. If so, I think I just proved my point.
>
No, it's not.

Look...the article posts items that have not been contradicted by Claudia. The
basic series of facts as presented are, as far as I know, unchallenged.

It says that "opinions differ" on the background of the situation. No, it
doesn't give her story on the background, but it ALSO DOESN'T GIVE MINE.
Nowhere in there is there any background from this side of the desk. If one
side were presented in detail, that's one thing...but NEITHER background was
quoted in this, only the specific facts of what happened: that she didn't give
the extension (she admits this), that the deadline passed and the offer was
withdrawn (ditto).

Other folks want to fight over the why, fine...the article only had the
obligation to go into *what* happened, not get into the fannish fight over the
whys and wherefores...which, frankly, if I'm to be honest, are really none of
anybody's business...and would never have been had Claudia not started this at
conventions.


jms