The word is that the link to the letter referenced in the last post doesn’t work any more. All that happened was that the HTML file was edited. The underlying file, statement.swf, is still there. All you need to do is look at http://www.sewfastseweasy.com/stitch_and_bitch/statement.swf to see it.
But even if the file is removed, never fear. I think that half of the Internet knitting community either saved a copy or took screenshots — check LissaKay’s comment to my last post (#10). If that Flash file disappears from the SFSE website, I’ve got my screenshots ready to go.
Edited to add: Yup, there it is, back again. It wasn’t loading at all earlier.
And then edited again to add: Jess called it (in the comments): one of the spelling mistakes on the second page of the letter was corrected. Another one of the spelling mistakes on the second page was half-corrected. Too bad he didn’t correct the mistake he made in typing Deb Stoller’s name.
And once again: It’s gone, again. But now you can see that there are some new ground rules at the SFSE forum: “No deliberate direction to advertising of any Stitch and Bitch books will be allowed.”
You’ve been warned. But it’s a strange conundrum for a business; you might recall that when SFSE supplied its specimens of use for its trademark application for STITCH AND BITCH, it supplied a photograph of a workbook with “Stitch & Bitch” printed on the cover. Some clarification of the injunction against forum advertising might be needed.
I’ll be editing this post one more time today to post a link to my commentary on the letter as originally posted. Here–page 1, page 2. It’s not a legal analysis–it’s just scrawled notes of what went through my head when I read
wrote (duh) it. No guarantees about legibility.
I don’t normally mark up a letter to this degree when I’m working. If this had been a letter presented to me by an articling student or a junior, I would have started making notes for the first paragraph or two, then given up and just called the writer into my office.