|Viewing Single Post From: New Ed Scott Interview!|
|esp13||Jun 24 2009, 10:09 PM|
I have a serious (as in non-snarky) question. How is it "established" that Ed Scott broke the rules? I've seen rumors, speculation, alleged inside information from anonymous sources, interpretations of a couple of remarks made at fan events, and conclusions drawn from unnamed or unsourced evidence. But, I have never seen anything indicated the WGA actually determined that Ed Scott violated the rules, that Ed Scott admitted violating the rules, or that anything was actually proven.|
I understand if somebody chooses to believe all of that and, therefore, believes that it happened that way. But, given the power struggle going on at the time, the lack of any actual hard evidence (that I'm aware of), and the lack of follow up by the WGA, I think there is still some reasonable doubt that Ed Scott was guilty of any actual wrongdoing. It wouldn't be the first time somebody made a false or exaggerated accusation in order to get somebody fired.
|New Ed Scott Interview! · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion|