I've debated posting about this topic for the last hour or so, only because it's only nominally associated with food. Then I realized that I haven't posted a recipe since Monday, so my standards have already been compromised.

It seems as if some of my activities have lent themselves to a bit of a controversy. This has led to some people being very, very upset with me (Hi Judith! Hi Jason!).

So in the issue of transparency, in the issue of covering my own tuckus, and to set my side of the record as best as possible, I think I should clarify what I believe to be true. I'll do this via a timeline.

Jump below the cut to get the full story (if you're into this sort of masochism)

[More:]

Late May/Early Jun 2005: I read somewhere that WebLogs Inc is hiring food blog writers. Being a food blog writer, I think this could possibly lead to some good exposure. I send the requisite e-mail to ask for information.

Mid June 2005: I get an e-mail back from an Weblogs Inc representative who asks me to call or e-mail back so we can discuss.

June 20th, 2005: We hold said phone conversation. We talk about what I'm currently doing, my current plans and what I hope to get out of writing for WebLogs Inc. I say, exposure, because blogging for money is unlikely. I let her know that I plan on writing for other food sites, and that my own site (Accidental Hedonist) is always a priority over anyone else's. I mention that I write for Seattlest, but agree that I can make them my third priority, below WebLogs Inc.

I also mention my future plans to expand into travel blogs if and when the money is right, even mentioning that I may start my own travel blog. (for the record, AH was intended on being both a food AND travel blog, but I don't have the money to travel all the time).

She neither agrees nor disagrees to these statements I make, and never says that I could or could not do them once I sign the contract with them.

We agree that I will take the lowest consulting available, making me only responsible for 1-2 posts a day, and she promises to send me the contract soon. I promise to send her a bio as soon as possible.

June 21: I send said bio

June 22: (8:15 am) I find out that Time Magazine calls this site a cool web blog, giving it an honorable mention in the food blog category. They say I write with flair, whatever that is. (This isn't just me tooting my horn, although I am proud of this honor. It plays into my state of mind).

(9:29 am)Representative sends contract. It has several clauses that were not touched upon in our phone conversation. Part of the contract has a stipulation that states I cannot own or engage in other work that competes with WebLogs Inc's food blog or travel blog. No mention of my own site, nor the other sites that I mentioned over the phone.

(10:56 am)I e-mail the rep and tell her of the oversight of the exclusion of Accidental Hedonist.

(11:30 am)I note that the rep had set the consulting rate, making me responsible for 4 posts a day.

(11:38) I e-mail the rep the consulting rate oversight.

(1:11pm) Rep sends updated contract back. I set aside to review later.

Rest of day, I bask in the glow of the Time article. I also enjoy my traffic increase.

June 23: (9:30 am) I review updated contract. Still no mention of Seattlest nor other travel blogs, but in their defense, I didn't mention it in the previous day's e-mail. Do I be a prima donna and ask about it? Or do I let it slide?

(10:12 am) I become a prima donna and ask about it. I ask if these sites were non-negotiable.

Rest of the week: I don't give Weblogs Inc that much thought. I'm waiting for their response before committing any more energy to it. Meanwhile? I enjoy the positive attention the blog is getting.

June 29th: Rep sends me an e-mail saying they've amended the contract to my specs. But no contract is attached to the e-mail. "How rude" I think. I place them on my internal "low priority" list. I do not respond to this e-mail

July 2nd: Rep sends another e-mail asking where my signed and faxed contract is. I tell them I'm really not interested, especially since Tex positive attention brought forth by the Time article. I don't mention how they never addressed all of my issues, nor do I mention other aspects of the contract that I find odd. I don't need them, and they can easily find someone else.

July 27: Sam, of food blog scool posts an e-mail she's received from someone looking for food blog writers for Weblogs Inc. Being that my experience with them was slightly less than optimal, I decide to leave a comment.

July 28: (5:56 am)I post said comment, but base it off of nothing but my collective memory. There are some factual errors in my comment. I decide to re-review the contract.

(7:50 am) I think to myself, instead of going off of my memory, how about just posting the whole darn thing? I open the contract in Adobe, and no where in the contract does it read "Don't post as a comment on other people's site" or even a "Confidential - do not share". So I share it for the world to see. I do give Sam (who runs Food Blog Scool) the right to remove the comment if she gets in trouble for it.

The rest of the day: People note how crappy of a contract it is.

August 4: The initial sender of the e-mail to Sam that Sam posts about on July 27, complains to Sam. Sam sends me an e-mail stating that the author has asked her to pull the post. Sam asks said author to contact me to talk about the disagreement. Said author never contacts me.

August 25:(10:00 am) I notice I'm getting referral traffic from Blogebrity, specifically from this post. In that post, I'm alerted to the Metafilter post. I leave a comment, giving an abridged version of the escapade.

(10:08 am) Weblogs Inc rep sends e-mail stating that the story in the food blog scool comment is different from the one I gave to her in the e-mail. The rep also mentions that what part of "personal and confidential" did I not understand?

I have no idea what the rep means by "personal and confidential" - no where on the contract is it mentioned. I review their e-mail to me.

Sure enough, in the sig line below the reps name, title, company name, office phone number, fax phone number, IM address contact info, Skype number, i-name web address, Weblogs Inc's web address, and social software's web address, is a line that essentially states that what the rep sent me was confidential. Previously, I had tuned out to their sig line after I got to their skype number, never to return to it again.

Dammit!

(10:33) I send an e-mail back to rep, stating "I'm sorry, I never noticed the 'personal and confidential' bit before, oh and by the way, how come you never responded to my e-mail?

(10:35) I e-mail Sam and ask her to remove said comment, copying the Weblogs Inc rep on the missive.

(10:40) I read the metafilter entry. Everyone notes how crappy the contract is.

(10:45) Rep sends an e-mail saying "What e-mail?" The rep then apologizes for not receiving e-mail.

(11:07) Sam e-mails me back to say comment has been removed. I do save the comment prior to it's removal.

(11:25) I forward the e-mail the rep never got from me.

(11:26) I send an e-mail accepting the reps apology and I apologize for not following up and giving them the proper respect.

Hopefully this will be the end of all of this hub-bub. I made a mistake and hopefully have corrected it. But, as the cliche goes, too little too late.

I wonder if I'll hear from lawyers. If so, anyone got any advice?