lorraine williams

[Col_Pladoh]

To the best of my knowledge and belief Lorraine Williams has no redeeming qualities.

Here are a few choice examples of her conduct:

She set out to get me because I said aloud in her presence that when the financial difficulties of 1984 were finally cleared up I intended to give employees shares fo stock and eventually make the corporation employee owned. She was overheard to mutter: "Over my dead body. This company is going to be my retirement."

CBS dropped the D&D Cartoon Show spinnoff that was in pre-production with three approved scripts, and Edgar Gross dropped negotiations for having John Boorman direct a D&D-game-based major motion picture when Williams took over the company because her reputation in the entertainment industry is what it is.

She sued her own brother, Flint Dille.

Her srep-daughter emailed me stating what a witch Lorraine wasm how she had ruined her life, and comisserating with me. Yes. I have kept that email.

Happy New Year,
Gary

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...but this meant that she ran it to benefit herself to the exclusion of anyone else, employees included...

...She was overheard to mutter: "Over my dead body. This company is going to be my retirement."...

She increasingly sounds like a dime-store take on Jeffrey Skilling, minus the large scale public scrutiny and trial. Both are apparently unpleasant people who ran a company like a sociopath, had contempt for customer and employees and investors and walked away with a lot of money.

Her step-daughter...

Wait, wait, wait, wait... you mean some one married her? Was it willingly?

 

[Fifth Element]

Things like this spark my need to nit-pick. If he heard her say something, then his passing it on would be a first-hand account. If he heard from 'someone else' that she said it then you would call it hearsay.

I don't think that's accurate. But then there's really two things going on. Whether Ms. Williams said something, and whether what she said was accurate. A comment from Mr. Gygax could provide evidence of one, but not the other. It would be hearsay with respect to establishing the truth of what was said.

 

[TerraDave]

Col Pladoh and Mr. Freitas: I would also like to add my thanks.

I think the OP has the answer to his original question...

One thing about this thread is that it is one of the few (or only?) on ENWorld to touch on my area of profesional expertise (though I should note I am not a lawyer per se).

No only was Buck Rogers just a bad idea, it was a related party transaction used to "tunnel" money out of TSR. On top of other salary and benefits that may have been excessive given her "contribution" to the bottom line of the company. These could have certainly violated her legal duties to other shareholders.

But where there any? Did she just hurt the Blume brothers (there is an irony here)? I should note that this kind of behavior, taking to extreme, will also hurt other contractual parties, and in theory she could be personally liable (but this is hard to show in practice).

Anyways, that is just a little profesional speculation.

But whether or not we should hate Lorraine Williams, it is now pretty clear she hated us.

 

[Fifth Element]

Her srep-daughter emailed me stating what a witch Lorraine wasm how she had ruined her life, and comisserating with me. Yes. I have kept that email.

For example, this is hearsay with respect to accuracy. The assertion that the step-daughter made this claim is supported. But simply having such an email does nothing to support whether Ms. Williams actually ruined her step-daughter's life. No first-hand knowledge is gained by receiving an email about it.

 

[frankthedm]

Thank you Gary.

 

[Fifth Element]

No only was Buck Rogers just a bad idea, it was a related party transaction used to "tunnel" money out of TSR. On top of other salary and benefits that may have been excessive given her "contribution" to the bottom line of the company. These could have certainly violated her legal duties to other shareholders.

True, but since we don't have any information as to the quantum of any of these things, it's certainly hard to say if they were excessive.

 

[Darkwolf71]

For example, this is hearsay with respect to accuracy.

[Inago]I do not think that word means what you think it means.[/Inago]

Hearsay is information from an unknown or uncertain source. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information in question. While hearsay is far more likely to be innaccurate, it is also quite possible for it to be true.

You can question the accuracy of Gary's statement for many reasons, time since occurrence, age (nothing personal Gary ), or even pre-existing animosity. That's all fine. You cannot, however question the source. We all see that it was in fact Col_Playdoh who said that he recieved this email. The only thing you could question is the existence of said email. In which case you are not calling it hearsay, you are calling it a lie.

 

[Piratecat]

Since the original poster has their answer, including opinions from several folks who knew her personally, I'm going to reluctantly close this thread. It makes us a little uncomfortable because it treads closely on EN World's "don't insult people" policy -- although some of this is important D&D history that's worth knowing. I've found it really interesting.

I'll be placing a copy of this thread in our archives.