(It's still a sight better than NcR, which has hired a disgraced ax grinder to replace one of their better writers.)
An article about a Fr. R's threatened lawsuit against a blogger reports the priest saying he’s not planning to take legal action against the blogger, considers the matter closed, and never planned to sue.
None of that is in quotes in the article. This was:
“It was never my intention to sue, but rather to issue a letter to ‘cease and desist’ the frivolous calumny.”
The reporter, (who is not, I think, a native English speaker, but betrays no problems at all with comprehension or idioms,) lets that stand without question.
This, despite the contents of the letter sent on Fr. R's behalf, (and presumably at his request, although offered pro bono,) being widely available, and contradicting this lack of intent.
We have been retained by [Fr. R].....Are we to think the law firm acted without his knowledge or consent? (because THAT would be a story,) or that he was joking in his threats?
We formally demand that you immediately and publicly retract all statement [sic] on the blog regarding [Fr. R] and apologize to him on the Blog. [sic] As well, we direct you to remove all references to [Fr. R] in your blog other than the retraction and/or apology. If our demands are not complied with by the end of business on [4 days from date of letter] we will seek instructions to commence an action against you.
We reserve the right to commence litigation against you regardless of and apology or retraction, but assure you that in the absence of an apology or retraction, the damages claimed will be significantly higher.
Govern yourself accordingly.
I like Fr R's work, what I've seen of it, and the blogger in question may be a crackpot, but Crux offers a kind of dishonest picture of what happened.
(And the denizens of the combox are foul, at least as bad as the rabid right-wing Catholic bloggers whom I believe the reporter references at the beginning of her piece, and they are disgusting.)