I'm not looking to make enemies; I'm just asking you a question. Do me the courtesy of answering it, please...
"When is acceptable to hold someone to an agreement to pay for something that was not provided, as was agreed to be provided in exchange for the payment?"
If you or Roy or anyone can demonstrate to me how the above scenario can be reasonable, I will do my utmost to comply.
If you can't answer that one, tell me; should I remove all of the evidence from my site, as Roy also demands of me? What would you do if you were me?
P.s. You're welcome to publish all of my correspondence on your website if you wish and I shall respond in kind. If I see you trying to put a "spin" on the truth, I'll have no other choice but to re-establish the original content that I changed so far. That way, your readers can decide for themselves.
After all, it is about the freedom to speak the truth. Several times, now, I've offered Roy and his client the opportunity to show me what's not truthful - neither has had anything to say about that, either.

----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Johns
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: "David and Goliath II"


....And now you've illustrated my point. That's all you see here, isn't it?
What you want. Answer *my* question, would you? Do what *I* want. Make the
points *I* want made. Don't try that objective stuff on me, I just wanna
talk about *me, me, me*.

I guess that tactic frustrates Roy et al, but I just find it amusing and
child-like. I can't believe how much respect for a man can be lost in three
short emails. You can keep asking, but outside of your bubble, some people
actually function better working together, and not making everyone an enemy.
Give it a try - you might even like it.


>From: "David Thomson" <>
>To: "Fred Johns" <>
>Subject: Re: "David and Goliath II"
>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:26:38 -0800
>O.k. Fred; I see that you managed to avoid even the one question, though
>you devote a lot of words to your reply...
>"When is acceptable to hold someone to an agreement to pay for something
>that was not provided, as was agreed to be provided in exchange for the
>Just answer the question, Fred, would you?
>Or you could pay me, say.... 15 grand for doing nothing. Either way, I'd be
>Keep on truckin' eh,
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Fred Johns
>   To:
>   Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:54 PM
>   Subject: Re: "David and Goliath II"
>   David,
>   Wow. So now SomethingCool News is guilty of "inaccurate" reporting. This
>   a big change from several months ago when you applauded us for our
>   and "integrity" and you were "grateful" that we had taken a "stand
>   injustice." Of course, that was back when we had interviewed you three
>   and directed people to your website - well before we talked to the other
>   party involved in this dispute. Now that we have done that, we are
>   "inaccurate" and "threatened". I wonder what changed?
>   I've read all the emails from you that get sent to my Inbox - letters
>   have written to all sorts of people, including Roy Sommery and I am a
>   surprised you would use the same language with me you used with someone
>   you claim has "extorted" you. Putting SCN in the same league as someone
>   you say is directly responsible for making your life a living hell is an
>   interesting thing to do, and I dare say, somewhat telling.
>   I had a conversation this past week with a mayoral candidate from
>   who was talking about an alleged media bias against him by a local
>   newspaper. In effect, he was blaming the media for his poor showing at
>   polls in the recent municipal election. I did an interview with the
>   of this newspaper and we had an interesting discussion about how the
>   suits some people when they need it but when the media goes in a
>   direction than the one they personally want, their tune changes pretty
>   and suddenly they are the devil.
>   This reminds me a bit of our conversation. When we were discussing your
>   story and pointing people in the direction of your website, we were
>   champions of your cause. When we interviewed your adversary and shared
>   thoughts about that interview, we were the bad guy. When we stepped up
>   said the request of Doak Shireff for you to shut down your website was
>   wrong, we were the good guys, but when we said that Roy Sommery answered
>   questions in a reasonable manner, suddenly we share the same doghouse as
>   does in your world.
>   I originally thought that your complaint had merit and your cause was
>   and that you were truly desperate to get your side of things out there
>   people to understand. Your comment, "what they do to one of us, they do
>   us all" seemed in-line with that way of thinking. But this recent
>   conversation between us makes me wonder if in fact I didn't misjudge
>you. If
>   we are no longer viewed in a respectful way by you simply because we
>   from the path you had laid out, then that suggests something about your
>   motives, doesn't it? It sure suggests to me that you have the view that
>   anyone who isn't totally and fully with you is automatically against you
>   the same view the Abbotsford politician had.
>   It tells me that the story you want to tell is all about you and in a
>   you want to tell it - which does not, I am afraid, make for very
>   reporting. Attacking us and lumping us in with the people you have
>   the most will not make your case any stronger - in fact, it has the
>   effect. My opinion of you and your plight has changed and I believe the
>   David Thomson story had dissolved into the story of a man on a personal
>   crusade. Like the person who wrote that letter to the Kelowna newspaper,
>   supported you and believed in your claims - until you turned against us
>   doing nothing wrong. I'm disappointed in that, and I suspect when our
>   readers find out about that - especially the ones that voiced support
>   you - they will be as well.
>   If we've fallen out of favour with you now, then I recommend not reading
>   next issue. I will thank you for the co-operation you showed right up
>   this recent email exchange - you were diligent and responsive to our
>   questions. It's unfortunate that we became your enemy, but SCN was never
>   meant to make everyone happy I guess. We wish you well in your future
>   endeavors and although we likely won't be reporting on it, we hope your
>   situation is resolved to your satisfaction.
>   Fred.
>   >From: "David Thomson" <>
>   >To: "Fred Johns" <>
>   >Subject: Re: "David and Goliath II"
>   >Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:03:01 -0800
>   >
>   >Fred,
>   >
>   >All I'm asking for is an accurate reporting. Yours is inaccurate.
>   >
>   >If you wish to avoid all of the questions that I posed to you, it's
>   >prerogative - that's also Roy's tactic, though he doesn't "own" it.
>   >
>   >Just answer me this one question, would you please, Fred.
>   >
>   >When is acceptable to hold someone to an agreement to pay for something
>   >that was not provided, as was agreed to be provided in exchange for the
>   >payment?
>   >
>   >Yours very truly,
>   >
>   >David Thomson
>   >
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: Fred Johns
>   >   To:
>   >   Cc:
>   >   Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:28 PM
>   >   Subject: RE: "David and Goliath II"
>   >
>   >
>   >   David,
>   >
>   >   Thanks for your letter. As the editor of a news website growing in
>   >   popularity and substance, I am very much still "in the game." This
>   >not
>   >   mean, however, that our coverage is about any single issue or single
>   >cause.
>   >   Our coverage of your plight and your website,, has
>   >been of
>   >   interest to our readers as have many other stories and features we
>   >   written. However, as I am sure you can appreciate, we cannot allow
>   >one
>   >   issue to dominate all the other ones, especially when there are so
>   >of
>   >   them going on.
>   >
>   >   Frankly, I am puzzled by your email and its adversarial tone. Your
>   >comment
>   >   that our interview with Roy was "misleading and questionable" is
>   >as
>   >   puzzling - is this because we published a view contrary to the one
>   >hold
>   >   so dear? That you would suggest our "silence" on this issue is
>   >"deafening"
>   >   is equally as confusing - are you saying that if we do not
>   >   publish articles about your situation then we are not doing our job?
>   >
>   >   I'll admit your email caught me by surprise as I was under the
>   >impression
>   >   you were appreciative of our interest in your story, being that few
>   >other
>   >   media outlets seem as interested. That you would say we are denying
>   >   readers their "rights" because we have not written more articles on
>   >   situation is a little much, to be honest. I don't understand why you
>   >would
>   >   want to turn a friend into an enemy but perhaps that is what has
>   >frustrated
>   >   Roy Sommery so much, but then only he can speak to that and I won't
>   >attempt
>   >   to do it for him. (You should try that technique some time.)
>   >
>   >   The bottom line of this is that your story continues to be of
>   >to
>   >   us, just as the homeless problem in Port Coquitlam is, just as the
>   >   Abbotsford elections have been, just as the ugly nature of
>   >is.
>   >   We don't have the space nor the time to write articles about these
>   >issues
>   >   all the time either, but then the subjects of these stories don't
>   >   email us suggesting we are alienating our readers rights because we
>   >don't.
>   >   I'm sorry if our "silence" upsets you - unfortunately, you are not
>   >   editor of SCN nor do you decide its content. There is a reason for
>   >   Just as is your vision, SomethingCool News is
>mine. I
>   >   would have thought perhaps you would have been happy that - even for
>   >   briefest of moments - these two visions coincided, but apparently
>   >Maybe
>   >   you would rather we had just not brought it up in the first place -
>   >that, or
>   >   just keep writing about your side and your views and not those of
>   >   else involved. That doesn't work for me, nor, I suspect, our
>   >But I
>   >   appreciate your attempt to speak for them and to try and point us in
>   >   right direction. By all means keep pointing, just don't hold your
>   >breath.
>   >
>   >   Fred.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   >From: "David Thomson" <>
>   >   >To: <>
>   >   >Subject: "David and Goliath II"
>   >   >Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:10:51 -0800
>   >   >
>   >   >Fred;
>   >   >
>   >   >I was just going over your site to see if you're still "in the
>   >In
>   >   >perusing your October 17th coverage, you made the comment; "One
>   >   >rightly wonder if either side truly remembers what the original
>   >was
>   >   >all about"
>   >   >If either side ever forgot (which seems unlikely to me, anyway)
>   >only
>   >   >have to review my site to refresh their memory; wouldn't you agree?
>   >   >
>   >   >I agree that my site has so much information that it has become
>   >cumbersome,
>   >   >even more-so, now that I acquiese to Roy's unreasonable demands
>   >   >encroach on my inalienable rights. Really, that's what's at the
>core of
>   >   >every demand that is being made of me. And certainly, in spite of
>   >   >volumes of documentation that is published on my site, it all
>   >to
>   >   >the same core issues.
>   >   >
>   >   >Tell me, Fred; when's the last time that you agreed to pay for
>   >something
>   >   >that was capitulated upon by the other side - they simply refused
>   >delivery
>   >   >(and held back your down-payment, to boot!)?
>   >   >
>   >   >What's so hard to understand about that, Fred? That is my position.
>   >I
>   >   >capitulate, now and willingly pay them any portion of their
>   >would
>   >   >that not set an intolerable precedent ?
>   >   >
>   >   >True, they have their judgements but you will find, narry a
>   >to
>   >   >any of the volumes of documentation that fills my site to the point
>   >that it
>   >   >fairly boggles the mind. In simple terms, their judgments are no
>   >than
>   >   >examples of suppression of evidence which is now at the core of
>   >   >demands.
>   >   >
>   >   >Your subsequent silence, save the piece, "The Goliath That Wasn't",
>   >after
>   >   >talking to Roy, I find, mis-leading and  questionable, coming from
>   >   >other reasonably-minded human being.
>   >   >
>   >   >Did Roy's huffing and puffing scare you off your game? Did he
>   >you,
>   >   >too? We both know that he's threatening me; right?
>   >   >
>   >   >What visions for the future do you aspire to that you think would
>   >common
>   >   >with mine, given the stand I'm taking? Do I have to lose my home in
>   >order
>   >   >to demonstrate my conviction on my own? Or are you willing to
>   >me,
>   >   >now to preserve these common, inalienable rights?
>   >   >
>   >   >What about the rights of your readers?
>   >   >
>   >   >Frankly, Fred, your silence is deafening.
>   >   >
>   >   >Yours very truly,
>   >   >
>   >   >David Thomson
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   --
>   >   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   >   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>   >   Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/182 - Release Date:
>   >11/24/2005
>   >
>   --
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>   Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/182 - Release Date:

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/182 - Release Date: 11/24/2005