Author's book publication cancelled after a tweet reporting on a WMATA employee eating on the metro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the metro employee for this:

"You worry about yourself."

That is perfect advice.

I love this too. She could have said “F— off,” (I would have), but she handled it gracefully.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not "graceful". If she really thought that she had the right to eat on the train, she should have calmly explained that. But she was defensive, because she knew that she was wrong.

She did not have to explain herself to that woman. Who are you people. You do not own service workers. They are not your servants and slaves. Geese, the entitlement of some of our people. It’s crazy.

So you think breaking a rule is fine, especially if done by an employee of that company? Do you eat on the Metro? Do you have problems with more cockroaches and rodents in the system, and do you care that some people may end up with deadly allergic reactions in the depth of the subway where medical care might take a long time to reach them?

Stop being ridiculous.

DP here and it's not my job to police people on the metro. If I see something that is not allowed I am free to report it to the station manager.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if she wins, she will need to self publish her work. She is too much of a risk for a publisher. This whole lawsuit kills her career as a published writer. Its Instagram for her forever. Pictures and Twitter blurbs.

HA, well it sounds like she would have been better off self-publishing. Her book tanked.

Eisen's full statement reads:

The complaint filed against Rare Bird by Natasha Tynes is baseless for a host of reasons, chief among them: Rare Bird has never had any agreement of any kind with Ms. Tynes, nor has anyone from Rare Bird ever had any contact with her whatsoever, and Rare Bird’s statement about Ms. Tynes’ conduct was not defamatory.

Ms. Tynes’ publisher, California Coldblood, arranged for Rare Bird to distribute the book. As Rare Bird has stated previously, the company could not in good conscience be affiliated in any way with Ms. Tynes’ book, given her actions on social media.

As for the amount of damages Mr. Tynes claims to be seeking, it is worth noting that her book had pre-orders of less than 50 copies, and only a few hundred were scheduled to be printed. And it was not initially well-received: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-947856-75-2

It is ironic that, having taken advantage of her First Amendment rights with an ill-advised tweet, Ms. Tynes now seeks to stifle and punish use of those very same rights of a respected book publisher who legitimately expressed its opinions of her conduct, rather than take responsibility for her own actions. Ms. Tynes would have been better served to have simply let this episode disappear into the annals of history.

Rare Bird will, of course, expend all of the resources necessary to defeat this meritless litigation.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it doesn’t matter how much she would or wouldn’t have made from the publication of her book.
That publishers released a slanderous statement that will effect her future earnings.
Not sure where 13 million comes from, but I think the writer has a case.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Covington catholic case. That will be a bellweather for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it doesn’t matter how much she would or wouldn’t have made from the publication of her book.
That publishers released a slanderous statement that will effect her future earnings.
Not sure where 13 million comes from, but I think the writer has a case.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Covington catholic case. That will be a bellweather for this.

Very relevant recent case -- Oberlin to pay $11m to local baker for fake racism accusations:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the metro employee for this:

"You worry about yourself."

That is perfect advice.

I love this too. She could have said “F— off,” (I would have), but she handled it gracefully.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not "graceful". If she really thought that she had the right to eat on the train, she should have calmly explained that. But she was defensive, because she knew that she was wrong.

She did not have to explain herself to that woman. Who are you people. You do not own service workers. They are not your servants and slaves. Geese, the entitlement of some of our people. It’s crazy.

So you think breaking a rule is fine, especially if done by an employee of that company? Do you eat on the Metro? Do you have problems with more cockroaches and rodents in the system, and do you care that some people may end up with deadly allergic reactions in the depth of the subway where medical care might take a long time to reach them?

Stop being ridiculous.

DP here and it's not my job to police people on the metro. If I see something that is not allowed I am free to report it to the station manager.

That would be great if you trusted them to make the right decision. These days complaints made on social media get taken care of quicker than through traditional channels, as you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it doesn’t matter how much she would or wouldn’t have made from the publication of her book.
That publishers released a slanderous statement that will effect her future earnings.
Not sure where 13 million comes from, but I think the writer has a case.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Covington catholic case. That will be a bellweather for this.

Very relevant recent case -- Oberlin to pay $11m to local baker for fake racism accusations:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit/index.html

Hah. I was just coming here to post the same thing. She's guaranteed to win this one. The only question is how much $$$. Good for her. So sick of this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if she wins, she will need to self publish her work. She is too much of a risk for a publisher. This whole lawsuit kills her career as a published writer. Its Instagram for her forever. Pictures and Twitter blurbs.

HA, well it sounds like she would have been better off self-publishing. Her book tanked.

Eisen's full statement reads:

The complaint filed against Rare Bird by Natasha Tynes is baseless for a host of reasons, chief among them: Rare Bird has never had any agreement of any kind with Ms. Tynes, nor has anyone from Rare Bird ever had any contact with her whatsoever, and Rare Bird’s statement about Ms. Tynes’ conduct was not defamatory.

Ms. Tynes’ publisher, California Coldblood, arranged for Rare Bird to distribute the book. As Rare Bird has stated previously, the company could not in good conscience be affiliated in any way with Ms. Tynes’ book, given her actions on social media.

As for the amount of damages Mr. Tynes claims to be seeking, it is worth noting that her book had pre-orders of less than 50 copies, and only a few hundred were scheduled to be printed. And it was not initially well-received: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-947856-75-2

It is ironic that, having taken advantage of her First Amendment rights with an ill-advised tweet, Ms. Tynes now seeks to stifle and punish use of those very same rights of a respected book publisher who legitimately expressed its opinions of her conduct, rather than take responsibility for her own actions. Ms. Tynes would have been better served to have simply let this episode disappear into the annals of history.

Rare Bird will, of course, expend all of the resources necessary to defeat this meritless litigation.

Rare Bird is going extinct soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if she wins, she will need to self publish her work. She is too much of a risk for a publisher. This whole lawsuit kills her career as a published writer. Its Instagram for her forever. Pictures and Twitter blurbs.

HA, well it sounds like she would have been better off self-publishing. Her book tanked.

Eisen's full statement reads:

The complaint filed against Rare Bird by Natasha Tynes is baseless for a host of reasons, chief among them: Rare Bird has never had any agreement of any kind with Ms. Tynes, nor has anyone from Rare Bird ever had any contact with her whatsoever, and Rare Bird’s statement about Ms. Tynes’ conduct was not defamatory.

Ms. Tynes’ publisher, California Coldblood, arranged for Rare Bird to distribute the book. As Rare Bird has stated previously, the company could not in good conscience be affiliated in any way with Ms. Tynes’ book, given her actions on social media.

As for the amount of damages Mr. Tynes claims to be seeking, it is worth noting that her book had pre-orders of less than 50 copies, and only a few hundred were scheduled to be printed. And it was not initially well-received: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-947856-75-2

It is ironic that, having taken advantage of her First Amendment rights with an ill-advised tweet, Ms. Tynes now seeks to stifle and punish use of those very same rights of a respected book publisher who legitimately expressed its opinions of her conduct, rather than take responsibility for her own actions. Ms. Tynes would have been better served to have simply let this episode disappear into the annals of history.

Rare Bird will, of course, expend all of the resources necessary to defeat this meritless litigation.

Interesting that you post the "irony" this way and not the other way. The publisher apparently had a problem with the author tweeting something about someone but then turned around and tweeted something way worse about her.

And actually, it was really the publisher who first put an "official" racial spin on it. Before that, it was just rumblings and accusations from the public. The author herself said nothing remotely racist. It was the publisher's statement and embellishment that ultimately made the whole thing a news story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if she wins, she will need to self publish her work. She is too much of a risk for a publisher. This whole lawsuit kills her career as a published writer. Its Instagram for her forever. Pictures and Twitter blurbs.

HA, well it sounds like she would have been better off self-publishing. Her book tanked.

Eisen's full statement reads:

The complaint filed against Rare Bird by Natasha Tynes is baseless for a host of reasons, chief among them: Rare Bird has never had any agreement of any kind with Ms. Tynes, nor has anyone from Rare Bird ever had any contact with her whatsoever, and Rare Bird’s statement about Ms. Tynes’ conduct was not defamatory.

Ms. Tynes’ publisher, California Coldblood, arranged for Rare Bird to distribute the book. As Rare Bird has stated previously, the company could not in good conscience be affiliated in any way with Ms. Tynes’ book, given her actions on social media.

As for the amount of damages Mr. Tynes claims to be seeking, it is worth noting that her book had pre-orders of less than 50 copies, and only a few hundred were scheduled to be printed. And it was not initially well-received: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-947856-75-2

It is ironic that, having taken advantage of her First Amendment rights with an ill-advised tweet, Ms. Tynes now seeks to stifle and punish use of those very same rights of a respected book publisher who legitimately expressed its opinions of her conduct, rather than take responsibility for her own actions. Ms. Tynes would have been better served to have simply let this episode disappear into the annals of history.

Rare Bird will, of course, expend all of the resources necessary to defeat this meritless litigation.

Interesting that you post the "irony" this way and not the other way. The publisher apparently had a problem with the author tweeting something about someone but then turned around and tweeted something way worse about her.

And actually, it was really the publisher who first put an "official" racial spin on it. Before that, it was just rumblings and accusations from the public. The author herself said nothing remotely racist. It was the publisher's statement and embellishment that ultimately made the whole thing a news story.

+1

[Anonymous]

Metro “rules” are ridiculous. I’ll stand where I want, walk where I want and drink my coffee where I want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Metro “rules” are ridiculous. I’ll stand where I want, walk where I want and drink my coffee where I want.

And this breathtaking sense of entitlement, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with trying to maintain a civil society today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Tynes is suing the publisher for defamation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/06/08/an-author-lost-her-book-deal-after-tweeting-about-metro-worker-shes-suing-million/?utm_term=.c12bd51f6c75

Good for her - 90% of the people posting on this thread saying she was horrible don’t even remember her name. People need to stop jumping onthesenailly hyped up’ed and made up racism stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it doesn’t matter how much she would or wouldn’t have made from the publication of her book.
That publishers released a slanderous statement that will effect her future earnings.
Not sure where 13 million comes from, but I think the writer has a case.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Covington catholic case. That will be a bellweather for this.

Very relevant recent case -- Oberlin to pay $11m to local baker for fake racism accusations:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit/index.html

Hah. I was just coming here to post the same thing. She's guaranteed to win this one. The only question is how much $$$. Good for her. So sick of this stuff.

Thanks for posting this. Wow, this case is very interesting. Nick Sandman’s case has a motion to dismiss on July. I’m anxiously awaiting the outcome for his suit. I hope all of these cases succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the metro employee for this:

"You worry about yourself."

That is perfect advice.

I love this too. She could have said “F— off,” (I would have), but she handled it gracefully.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not "graceful". If she really thought that she had the right to eat on the train, she should have calmly explained that. But she was defensive, because she knew that she was wrong.

She did not have to explain herself to that woman. Who are you people. You do not own service workers. They are not your servants and slaves. Geese, the entitlement of some of our people. It’s crazy.

So you think breaking a rule is fine, especially if done by an employee of that company? Do you eat on the Metro? Do you have problems with more cockroaches and rodents in the system, and do you care that some people may end up with deadly allergic reactions in the depth of the subway where medical care might take a long time to reach them?

Stop being ridiculous.

DP here and it's not my job to police people on the metro. If I see something that is not allowed I am free to report it to the station manager.

Typical local attitude. To a DC resident, anything goes on the Metro. Shame on those who call out the rule breakers!

But when the opportunity is given for residents to start writing parking tickets and enforcing those rules, the pencils are sharpened and people are ready to act and ensure that people are following all local laws and ordinances!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the metro employee for this:

"You worry about yourself."

That is perfect advice.

I love this too. She could have said “F— off,” (I would have), but she handled it gracefully.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not "graceful". If she really thought that she had the right to eat on the train, she should have calmly explained that. But she was defensive, because she knew that she was wrong.

She did not have to explain herself to that woman. Who are you people. You do not own service workers. They are not your servants and slaves. Geese, the entitlement of some of our people. It’s crazy.

So you think breaking a rule is fine, especially if done by an employee of that company? Do you eat on the Metro? Do you have problems with more cockroaches and rodents in the system, and do you care that some people may end up with deadly allergic reactions in the depth of the subway where medical care might take a long time to reach them?

Stop being ridiculous.

DP here and it's not my job to police people on the metro. If I see something that is not allowed I am free to report it to the station manager.

Typical local attitude. To a DC resident, anything goes on the Metro. Shame on those who call out the rule breakers!

But when the opportunity is given for residents to start writing parking tickets and enforcing those rules, the pencils are sharpened and people are ready to act and ensure that people are following all local laws and ordinances!

Reporting someone for eating on metro is like reporting someone for littering on the street to the local police station. That's going right in the circular file.