Welcome, Dear Reader
Sorry, no nudes this month. After an illustrious career in noseWEEK, Jane’s going into interior decorating. We wish her well in her new venture.
Next we need to clear up some apparently common misapprehensions about noseWEEK. We often tease; we occasionally caricature to emphasise a point; we at least try for a giggle; it is our intention to write with passion, as most human beings communicate with one another, not in the bland and bloodless style so often used by newspapers. But we never set out to slander (which is to maliciously and falsely malign). We do not invent “facts”. We make every effort to ensure that our news reports are true, as unbelievable as they may often be. Our reports might defame (as opposed to slander), insofar as the facts may not be to the credit of those concerned.
But then, maybe, they do not deserve credit.
Many readers thought we must have invented at least most of the story about Sonnenbergs and Webber Wentzel. Why else, they asked, would the mainstream press have remained silent about such an incredible case? Readers would do well to ponder that question, and then, maybe, they will understand why it is necessary to subscribe to noseWEEK.
And why did Sonnenbergs and Webber Wentzel, whose business is, after all, to sue, not sue? Is it because they all have this incredible sense of humour? While we know at least some of them do have a sense of humour, surely the more likely reason is that the story is true. In which case, from their point of view, the less said and the quicker everyone forgets about it, the better. Those who wish to know more may, for a start, check the court records in Cape Supreme Court case no 11906/89, and the records of the District Court of Harris County, Texas, case no.88-855972.
The similar silence from Murray & Roberts? Well, that will have to wait until next time.
Meanwhile we hope you enjoy this issue and appreciate the rich American flavour of our cover.
- The Editor
Copyright © 2021 www.noseweek.co.za