View Single Post
Old 07-19-2013, 10:26 AM   #121
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,896
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
There seems no reason to suppose that there's any deception here. It was the law firm which contacted Rowling's agent about the disclosure. Perhaps Ms Callegari subsequently told Mr Gossage that she had leaked the information. She wasn't breaking any law by doing so, but Mr Gossage very likely was breaching the solicitor's code of professional ethics by breaking client confidentiality in this way.
This is what you quoted yourself:
Quote:
"A tiny number of people knew my pseudonym and it has not been pleasant to wonder for days how a woman whom I had never heard of prior to Sunday night could have found out something that many of my oldest friends did not know," she added.
If the author of the tweet was anonymous, then how did Rowling know that it was a woman she never heard of before?

Before the law firm contacted her with the explanation there was no reason for her to assume that the tweet was written by a woman that she had no previous contact with. If there was anything to wonder for days about it would have been whom among the tiny number of people that knew her pseudonym leaked the information.
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote