Dear Rachel Glucina Part II

"Which thin skinned croaker is quick to jump to conclusions? Bless the petulant little blossom. She wants to play with the big boys and dish it out but can't take it. What a thin skinned little petal she is, that's when she's not boasting about her rich and powerful sexual conquests including a political mover and shaker who kept his socks on, she reckons. But he can't remember even shaking hands with Ms Petal, let alone getting nearly naked".

1. Rachel I am sure I jumped to the same conclusion everyone who reads the relevant New Zealand blogs did that you were talking about me, it was obviously such a brain tease for them all. But I do take compliments where they are due and thank you for noting not once but twice that in direct comparison to your alleged bulging voluminous mass I indeed now qualify to be termed "little".

2. You have obviously entered the realm of the slow learner from last week and I refer you to points #9 and #10 of that piece. I invited you to keep the one shred of professional integrity you had left in your reporting and shut it, to which you have sadly declined to take up.

3. So many precious column inches here Rachel. Will you cease attempting to make me a celebrity in your own lunchtime? I'm not going to hire your services damn it. You are meant to be reporting on New Zealand celebrities, you know those women who pay PR hacks to get their stories in Women's Day or New Idea for $5-10K so they can pay their rent and get invited to "cool" parties you go to and dribble off the walls leeching information from people for your column? Of which I am not a celebrity, I repeat again for the sl..ow learner, not a celebrity. As I am not a celebrity it is more obvious than ever that you use your column to pursue your own personal vendettas. If though you are going to make up more lies that link me to "rich and powerful sexual conquests" then can they at least be really, like really hot?

4. Once again your comments are completely incorrect to the point they are just plain silly. Many moons ago (23rd October 2005 to be precise so everyone with an appropriate newspaper search engine can look it up) the Sunday Star Times (or Herald, I can't even remember) ran a quick short from a blog about a politician who allegedly was a marvelous bonk and has sex with his socks on. That story was run around the same time that politician was becoming a controversial Minister of the Crown. Many readers of my work will recall the story.

5. If once again you had done your homework and actually read the newspaper archives and not relied on some b-grade hacker to give you the information third or fourth hand, there is a very good reason the Minister will not recollect shaking his wild thing in front of me, and that's because he didn't and hasn't and I never claimed or even inferred he had.

6. I have met the gentleman in question just once, well over six years ago and I was introduced that time by the author of this blog. He should be able to confirm that we all (thankfully) kept our clothes on during our short meeting. Oh..and Rachel, (a real) New Zealand Herald journo Audrey Young was there at the time as well, but I don't think she will remember other than to be able to confirm that at no stage did anyone's clothes come off. I think she would remember that.

7. Information was simply passed to me by a reliable source and was reported in a complimentary fashion to all parties concerned. The newspaper reported this in the correct fashion, that someone else had made the claim and passed to me. The newspaper did not suggest that I was a party myself to the alleged act, because I clearly was not. Just because you Rachel report others sexual activity in your column, does it mean or even infer you were a party? I would say no at a guess, thankfully again for everyone concerned.

8. Rachel, one can only assume that this all comes back to competitive jealousy and you are a little upset that your father enjoys my blog and column more than your column.

9. My father (born in the same year as Mick Jagger and a fan of his) read your Pulitzer work, the Jagger sting story and proclaimed "it's all down hill for a woman when she doesn't even get hit on by Jagger".

10. I tend to agree with Pops and call for Metro to once again disqualify you from Gossip Watch. on the grounds of even greater factual inaccuracy and incompetence than last week.

Regards


Cactus Kate

P.S: For next week pleeeease I request a "rich and powerful sexual conquest" with....Dan Carter. I admit I have never actually met the very sexy Dan Carter but surely that won't stop you from fabricating the whole thing for (this time) my mental benefit.