(If you need to catch up with the background, see the related posts links below.)
The latest development is Michael’s side of the story in which he offers some opinions about Sam’s character and makes a pretty serious allegation concerning missing sponsors’ money. Sam says it’s not true.
Saying such things in a public blog post seems very silly to me, unless there’s proof. If not, is it libellous? I’m not a lawyer, hard to say.
In any event, is this really the place to conduct this disagreement? Every Tom, Dick and Harry with an opinion is weighing in with comments to the post, too (well, it is a blog). And lots of commentary elsewhwere.
I’ve been following this quickly-developing story since Le Web 3 last week, and posting commentary, because I think it has relevance to the blogosphere, business blogging and social media. This development, though, appears to move it more into the realm of a contract dispute. And with yes-you-did, no-I-didn’t claim and counter claim, I don’t think it helps anyone’s reputation or credibility.
Still of interest, nevertheless, given the role of blogs as this saga plays out.