(Removing bizarre formatting)
On reflection, sometimes when you refuse to talk on the phone to a reporter I realise that you are actually talking to the reporter. My reply was saying go and do the digging. A Stone facebook texted saying she was doing the story, I did not contact her. I had read Debi's blog which nearly had me in tears so I thought this is going to be really bad.( yep, my finding her blog does suggest stalking doesn't it, think it was Google alert for "Tobermory Cat" ) This is my side of the communication, three blocks of text sent from me.
Yes, I'd misremembered the bit in the Guardian column where it said you hadn't commented, and instead copied and quoted comments you'd posted elsewhere. Sorry about that. It was a genuine mistake.
If reading Debi's blog nearly had you in tears, imagine how she must have felt being the target of your lengthy campaign against her, full of false accusations and attempts to damage her livelihood? Sorry, I have little sympathy for a man who gets upset when he reaps what he sowed.
I see now that your bizarre formatting had to do with you quoting yourself, which I did not realize because the bizarreness of the formatting and your quirky linguistics made it difficult for me to parse your text in that format. I am amending my post, but still responding to your comments, since you apparently posted them here for that purpose:
#Shit sticks and I am being cast as some sort of bully and it is very dangerous stuff. They construct a stalker - its a handy tag and serious tag.
Do you deny sending the tweets we have seen, or making the Facebook posts which are still on your page? You refused to answer Jim's questions asking you that before. If your Twitter feed and Facebook pages were hacked by people posting all those inflammatory comments, then my goodness, I do feel bad for you being painted as a bully. Unfortunately, since there is no evidence they weren't, and you have not denied any of the proof presented, we must believe they did indeed come from you. Which means that you are in fact behaving like a bully, and if you don't like being called on your behavior you should change your behavior.
Its looking like jail at the moment so whats the point.
No. It is not "looking like jail." For one thing, people do not generally go to jail for such things. For another, I doubt Ms. Gliori and her publisher would wish you to go to jail, since they are good and decent people.
However, if you feel so strongly that there is ample evidence of the wrongness of your behavior that you could be jailed for it, a good way to avoid such a result would be to STOP BEHAVING SO BADLY. People who go to jail do so because they have broken laws. If you believe you are headed for jail, that suggests that you now see your behavior was indeed wrong. It will be very simple to apologize and stop.
Never mind. Did you phone Browns shop - they may be away now. No matter, I'm stuffed so no point talking. Regards Angus#
There is a point in talking, if what you have to say is, "I now realize how incorrect my interpretation of the law is and how very appalling my behavior has been. I want to apologize to Ms. Gliori for my attempts to defame her and destroy her reputation and livelihood."
#Your simple question leaves me shaking. I have talked to the press before and ended up being threatened with money no object legal threats.
I suggest that if you are getting this upset, you should step away from this whole situation. Understand that you have no case, go back to posting pictures on Facebook and making beautiful art, and leave the rest of it alone. You can do it. I promise that within a few weeks this will all seem like a bad dream.
The issue of creative rights is an important one for many artists, the cat is a distraction. The issue is serious.
Yes, it is, which is why your complete misinterpretation, misapplication, and misunderstanding of the laws and the ethics of what's happened is so very upsetting to all of us. Nothing was stolen from you. No one has wronged you. Period.
#you could perhaps call Browns shop and ask the owners when and why their cat Ledaig became famous. Perhaps ask them if it was known as being famous before my facebook page and book. You could also ask what they think of my wee book and my struggle. I suggest this as news has a habit of running ahead of things - the story coming from the story told - mine is hard to find - it is buried in the facebook page. Angus#
None of that matters the slightest bit to this situation, despite your refusal to accept that fact. What does matter is copyright law as it pertains to writers, and you have no claim against Deb Gliori here.
You did not create the idea of a celebrity cat. You did not create the idea of a Tobermory cat. You did not create the idea of a cat with a Facebook page, or a Twitter account, or any sort of internet presence. You did not create the idea of posting cat pictures online. You did not create the idea of a cat "famous for being famous." All of that has existed for a long time--did you click the links I (and others) posted earlier, proving that?
Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed that your cat is actually three cats; are you now claiming it's just one cat, and that cat is owned by a particular shop? So your page is detailing the antics of just one cat, then, and not a "cat character" you invented using "three cat actors?"
I beg you to seek the advice of a solicitor experienced in copyright/IP law, and to take the advice he or she gives you, and to drop all this nonsense. Please. If you have a case, they will help you. If you do not, they will tell you, and perhaps hearing it from them will enable you to put this behind you. But please seek legal advice. I am saying this in a genuine spirit of helpfulness and a desire to see this all end. It is obviously upsetting you. Please talk to a solicitor, and abide by what they say.