Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Wikipedia Review _ Articles _ Biograph Company

Posted by: biographco Fri 30th March 2007, 1:54am

First, I want to thank the editors of the blog and say that there is such a need for this forum about Wikipedia, since this so called "Encyclopedia" is crawled by many other information websites and so many editors on Wikipedia truly have an agenda that is unfair and biased.

My company is a small independent film company and had been on Wikipedia for quite awhile with an article. Our company is a very old company, and has an exemplary reputation. We did not even post the first article but one of the Wiki-members did. The first article was fine and fairly accurate. However, in 2004 after our monument in Hollywood event, one editor appeared and became malicious with intent to harm the reputation of the company. This "Editor" also had a certain group of "Editors" that knew this person or he/she recruited them in an effort to discredit our company, and supply false information. We feel this was a personal attack and intent on harming the company's reputation for certain reasons.

At the time, I was not that familiar with Wikipedia guidelines or standards, and one of our VP's was extremely upset and dared to defy this "Editor". This VP who had a previous Wikipedia account was promptly blocked. I admit our VP did go against some Wiki-policies. Our attorney then attempted to call and contact Wikipedia to resolve the issue, but without results. The article was further re-written, including ambiguous information and intentional inclusions to make the company look "Ridiculous" which is actually posted IN WRITING by one of the administrators, yes, that this was their intent and goal. Since this, we have not attempted to change anything, in-process of legal proceedings according to state and federal law.

We also noticed that some other members of Wikipedia who were trying to correct the article contacted us on our information. These other editors also discovered that their was malicious intent against us, and were blocked as well by this other coalition of editors determined to discredit the company. This information we know of because of the blocked editors contacting our office.

We also was recently hacked and even embezzlement of funds occurred by hacking that coincide with recent Wikipedia activity against the company. This has been already reported to the proper authorities, and we believe it may have been a Wikipedia person involved in this slanderous effort.

Unfortunately, anyone attempting to correct the article about us is "Blocked" or "Banned". A monopoly of only a few associated editors now is able to include any false or harmful information without recourse. With this in mind, we have several options that we are in the process of initiating against Wikipedia and the foundation, some of it possibly criminal.

It is sad that Wikipedia is a great idea but is monopolized and used for personal and sometimes hateful agendas against others without provocation. We want to make everyone aware of this and maybe this can be stopped before Wikipedia finally pushed too far, and will eventually be shut down for inappropriate activity.

Please feel free to check out the Wikipedia article under "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" and also read the "Talk" sections as well as the archive sections. We also encourage any kind of input on this subject.

Posted by: anon1234 Fri 30th March 2007, 2:51am

It's standard practice for editors and administrators to engage in retaliation. It's just a petty power trip thing with many people over there. Legal complaints are by far the best recourse.

Posted by: Somey Fri 30th March 2007, 4:45am

By far!

I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive74#Roger_the_red. Should we assume that User:Will_Beback is the "editor" in question here? He does have a history of being unusually persecutorial, as several members here will attest. He even went to the trouble of maintaining what can only be described as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_Beback/AMBC on you and your company.

I hate to say this, but it's really best for someone in your position to avoid getting involved with these people in the first place. Their definition of "conflict of interest," as we've noted many times, is skewed and tailored to suit their purposes - in other words, Wikipedia demands that if you edit it, your primary interest is Wikipedia, not you, not your organization, and not your religion, political party, or anything else involving your personal beliefs (unless you're one of a handful of admins to whom these rules don't seem to apply). The whole thing is really a cultish Utopian fantasy whose ideals they attempt to enforce mostly by blocking people, but also by various other ad nauseum means that work just about as well - which is to say not very well at all!

Having said that, there's some material on the company's website that's somewhat, I daresay, not purely business-related...? I'm afraid that almost certainly raised some doubts among them as to your motivations, if not your sincerity. I don't suppose you've considered moving some of it off onto a different website?

Posted by: biographco Fri 30th March 2007, 12:16pm

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Thu 29th March 2007, 7:51pm) *

It's standard practice for editors and administrators to engage in retaliation. It's just a petty power trip thing with many people over there. Legal complaints are by far the best recourse.

Thank you for your reply and interest. Yes, we are going ahead with pursuit of legal action civilly as well as possible criminal.



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 29th March 2007, 9:45pm) *

By far!

I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive74#Roger_the_red. Should we assume that User:Will_Beback is the "editor" in question here? He does have a history of being unusually persecutorial, as several members here will attest. He even went to the trouble of maintaining what can only be described as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_Beback/AMBC on you and your company.

I hate to say this, but it's really best for someone in your position to avoid getting involved with these people in the first place. Their definition of "conflict of interest," as we've noted many times, is skewed and tailored to suit their purposes - in other words, Wikipedia demands that if you edit it, your primary interest is Wikipedia, not you, not your organization, and not your religion, political party, or anything else involving your personal beliefs (unless you're one of a handful of admins to whom these rules don't seem to apply). The whole thing is really a cultish Utopian fantasy whose ideals they attempt to enforce mostly by blocking people, but also by various other ad nauseum means that work just about as well - which is to say not very well at all!

Having said that, there's some material on the company's website that's somewhat, I daresay, not purely business-related...? I'm afraid that almost certainly raised some doubts among them as to your motivations, if not your sincerity. I don't suppose you've considered moving some of it off onto a different website?
Thank you very much for your reply. Our company history is interwoven with its future. However, it is a good idea to have a seperate history page dedicated only to its history. Again, we are a small company and don't pretend to be Dreamworks LLC. but we are "Real". Thank you also for your suggestons.


Posted by: anon1234 Sat 31st March 2007, 11:57pm

From AN/I:

QUOTE
Over on anti-Wikipedia whinefest Wikipedia Review, somebody claiming to be associated with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, or at least the modern company that has taken on this name in imitation of an unrelated early-20th-century movie company, is ranting and making legal threats, which of course are being warmly received over there, as is any anti-Wikipedia rant no matter how crackpotted. Among the things this guy apparently wants to sue over is our insistence on not considering his company the direct successor to the "classic" one, in the absence of any references outside of his own site that states such a connection in contrast to the many references that cite the original company being out of business by the 1930s. *Dan T.* 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:This happens pretty often at WR; they do nothing but whine and complain. I don't think that there's anything we can do, anyway. WR is way out of our jurisdiction. Comments? PTO 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::I guess its the wiki media foundation that should deal with this if anyone, not that any of WR's legal threats ever actually come to anything. Making legal threats is a poor substitute for pursuing legal action. Worth putting the article on one's watchlist though, SqueakBox 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Typical distortion. I notice they are associating the legal threats as coming from WR proper, but we are not an organization with the ability to file lawsuits as a group, but rather a message board in which many people from diverse groups can post. I still feel my advice to Biography Company is completely accurate, in that Wikipedia does respond appropriately to companies that make serious and properly argued legal filings regarding defamation and distorted article portrayals (and in such cases Wikipedia will remove the offending material), although Wikipedia doesn't take legal threats (remember: words are cheap, deeds are dear) seriously unless you make them on Wikipedia proper which will then result in a quick ban.

Posted by: Toledo Sun 1st April 2007, 12:44am

In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

Posted by: Somey Sun 1st April 2007, 4:21am

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:57pm) *
Typical distortion. I notice they are associating the legal threats as coming from WR proper, but we are not an organization with the ability to file lawsuits as a group, but rather a message board in which many people from diverse groups can post...

I know! Do they think we're forming a corporation or something? It's ludicrous. (But hardly surprising...)

Besides, their definition of "legal threat" pretty much means anything in which the word "legal" is included in a sentence. Pointing out legislation that might affect the content of an article is a "legal threat." Vaguely noting that the foundation might be sued for libelous content is a "legal threat." The entire WP:NLT policy is just a blinkering mechanism that lets them pretend that nothing they do ever has consequences. That, too, is ludicrous.

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 6:44pm) *
In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

Looks like much of the dispute was over the relationship of the modern company with the original...? The WP folks would probably have treated them much better if they'd named it "The American Mutant Biology Company" instead. smile.gif

Actually, I may use that for my own next company...

By the way, welcome to the forum, Toledo! We were sort of hoping for Cleveland, but I suspect you'll do just fine for now!

Posted by: guy Sun 1st April 2007, 12:47pm

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 1st April 2007, 5:21am) *

By the way, welcome to the forum, Toledo! We were sort of hoping for Cleveland, but I suspect you'll do just fine for now!

Welcome from me, too.

Cleveland is in North-East England and Toledo is in Spain - or is this some American joke? tongue.gif

Posted by: Somey Sun 1st April 2007, 4:00pm

QUOTE(guy @ Sun 1st April 2007, 7:47am) *
Cleveland is in North-East England and Toledo is in Spain - or is this some American joke? tongue.gif

How about "I was hoping for Barcelona," then? By all accounts, Barcelona is more fun than Cleveland...

Getting back to the topic at hand, among all the BLP-related discussions on WikiEN-L over the past 48 hours, this thread was http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/067238.html, and if I might be permitted to back-track here a little bit, I think one could certainly interpret "With this in mind, we have several options that we are in the process of initiating against Wikipedia and the foundation, some of it possibly criminal" as a threat to sue. (Of course, we don't have the same strictures or tendencies to redefine common phrases that WP has, but no matter...)

It's an interesting game, in a way, if I might be permitted to use the term "game" here. On the one hand, if you really want your lawsuit to succeed in actually damaging WP, it's probably best to threaten them over a period of months, during which time you'll be subjected to taunting, hostile edits, gloating, and various forms of insults, much of it obscene. You can use that in your case against them - doesn't matter that it's after-the-fact, because it demonstrates malicious intent.

On the other hand, if you want quick action in dealing with your immediate problem, such as getting libelous or inaccurate info out of an article or even getting a page deleted, it's probably best to file suit right away, without a lot of fanfare, and hope for some high-level intervention. Of course, that assumes you can find a lawyer willing to take on what may become a long-term, high-profile case, and that your case is strong enough to not be thrown out of court immediately on some sort of summary judgement.

I'm not sure what to suggest in AMBC's case... The WikiEN-L postings could be used to demonstrate WP's dismissive and hostile attitudes, but probably not very effectively, I suspect. That whole business about building a studio lot on the Moon, which is probably just a bit of fun they were having, didn't have a disclaimer on it saying "JOKE" - so their reaction to it probably couldn't be used against them.

Then again, it's not funny if you have to explain it, I guess!

Posted by: Toledo Sun 1st April 2007, 5:04pm

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. Here in Ohio, it's also one year. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

The statute of limitations on libel (published) or slander (spoken) in the state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated, is two years.

Which part of the article is libelous?

Posted by: Toledo Sun 1st April 2007, 5:44pm

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 1st April 2007, 12:00pm) *
That whole business about building a studio lot on the Moon, which is probably just a bit of fun they were having, didn't have a disclaimer on it saying "JOKE"
Someone who identified himself as a vice president of Biograph clearly did not consider it a joke, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walloon#Experience: "The property deed on the moon is valid. Branson with Virgin Galactic is looking into it as well. Are you laughing at him too? Check your facts before you discredit."

Posted by: Somey Sun 1st April 2007, 8:58pm

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sun 1st April 2007, 12:44pm) *
...The property deed on the moon is valid. Branson with Virgin Galactic is looking into it as well.

Admittedly, I did not see that!

Okay, I have to admit, that's a problem. Using Richard Branson as a means of backing up any sort of assertion is definitely a sign of... well, let's just say it's not at all good!

This isn't going to turn out well for anyone, is it?

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 3:29am

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 1st April 2007, 1:58pm) *

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sun 1st April 2007, 12:44pm) *
...The property deed on the moon is valid. Branson with Virgin Galactic is looking into it as well.

Admittedly, I did not see that!

Okay, I have to admit, that's a problem. Using Richard Branson as a means of backing up any sort of assertion is definitely a sign of... well, let's just say it's not at all good!

This isn't going to turn out well for anyone, is it?


First, to answer the moon subject, yes it was originally done for publicity. After we looked into it, we found out there was validity in the claim. We also contacted my friend Dick Branson's office. Dick is legit and yes the above statement is true, even governments are looking that way towards the moon. Please research it, it backs up what I say. Our main goal was to have a camera on the moon which is very feasable. Again, they used this in a negative way as they did with everything we state.

Now, I would like to thank all the unbiased and rational support. You can see by the malicious reaction of someone at Wikipedia the feelings towards us and our company. My big question is, why are they so biased against us? We had an article on Wikipedia, our company is "Real", our information on our company is put in a straight forward informational manner. My question again is.... What is their agenda, what do they have against us? It is irrelevant to us what Wikipedia puts out. It is when it is taken as "Fact" on onther websites. thw Wikipedia Foundation has to abide by all laws of the United States and the State laws of Florida, since it is incorporated in that state. Ranting they are not liable for any legal actions is detached from reality. They by law, have to abide by the same laws any corporation, profit or non-profit abide by. They are not exempt in any way as any other corporation of its type and class. As long as it is out there that their slanderous and libelous statements, not unintentionally, but admitted to be intentional by them in WRITING is to discredit the company, then other information websites need not crawl this article as "Fact". That is our only main concern, Again, this is not just civil, but criminal. Also, for our readers PLEASE read ALL of the discussions sections "Talk" sections in the Wikipedia article. You will find all you need to know in their, and thank you again for your interest.

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 3:48am

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 1st April 2007, 9:00am) *

QUOTE(guy @ Sun 1st April 2007, 7:47am) *
Cleveland is in North-East England and Toledo is in Spain - or is this some American joke? tongue.gif

How about "I was hoping for Barcelona," then? By all accounts, Barcelona is more fun than Cleveland...

Getting back to the topic at hand, among all the BLP-related discussions on WikiEN-L over the past 48 hours, this thread was http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/067238.html, and if I might be permitted to back-track here a little bit, I think one could certainly interpret "With this in mind, we have several options that we are in the process of initiating against Wikipedia and the foundation, some of it possibly criminal" as a threat to sue. (Of course, we don't have the same strictures or tendencies to redefine common phrases that WP has, but no matter...)

It's an interesting game, in a way, if I might be permitted to use the term "game" here. On the one hand, if you really want your lawsuit to succeed in actually damaging WP, it's probably best to threaten them over a period of months, during which time you'll be subjected to taunting, hostile edits, gloating, and various forms of insults, much of it obscene. You can use that in your case against them - doesn't matter that it's after-the-fact, because it demonstrates malicious intent.

On the other hand, if you want quick action in dealing with your immediate problem, such as getting libelous or inaccurate info out of an article or even getting a page deleted, it's probably best to file suit right away, without a lot of fanfare, and hope for some high-level intervention. Of course, that assumes you can find a lawyer willing to take on what may become a long-term, high-profile case, and that your case is strong enough to not be thrown out of court immediately on some sort of summary judgement.

I'm not sure what to suggest in AMBC's case... The WikiEN-L postings could be used to demonstrate WP's dismissive and hostile attitudes, but probably not very effectively, I suspect. That whole business about building a studio lot on the Moon, which is probably just a bit of fun they were having, didn't have a disclaimer on it saying "JOKE" - so their reaction to it probably couldn't be used against them.

Then again, it's not funny if you have to explain it, I guess!


Again, thank you for your input. They have taunted us for months. it is all in the articles "Talk" archives. Again, we are trying to find out what thier hidden agaenda is. On "Building" a studio lot, no such thing is intended. It was to own land on the moon as a "Lot" as in "Lot" of land. This is where the remote camera would be, just to clarify.

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sun 1st April 2007, 10:04am) *

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. Here in Ohio, it's also one year. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

The statute of limitations on libel (published) or slander (spoken) in the state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated, is two years.

Which part of the article is libelous?



QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 31st March 2007, 4:57pm) *

From AN/I:
QUOTE
Over on anti-Wikipedia whinefest Wikipedia Review, somebody claiming to be associated with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, or at least the modern company that has taken on this name in imitation of an unrelated early-20th-century movie company, is ranting and making legal threats, which of course are being warmly received over there, as is any anti-Wikipedia rant no matter how crackpotted. Among the things this guy apparently wants to sue over is our insistence on not considering his company the direct successor to the "classic" one, in the absence of any references outside of his own site that states such a connection in contrast to the many references that cite the original company being out of business by the 1930s. *Dan T.* 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:This happens pretty often at WR; they do nothing but whine and complain. I don't think that there's anything we can do, anyway. WR is way out of our jurisdiction. Comments? PTO 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::I guess its the wiki media foundation that should deal with this if anyone, not that any of WR's legal threats ever actually come to anything. Making legal threats is a poor substitute for pursuing legal action. Worth putting the article on one's watchlist though, SqueakBox 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Typical distortion. I notice they are associating the legal threats as coming from WR proper, but we are not an organization with the ability to file lawsuits as a group, but rather a message board in which many people from diverse groups can post. I still feel my advice to Biography Company is completely accurate, in that Wikipedia does respond appropriately to companies that make serious and properly argued legal filings regarding defamation and distorted article portrayals (and in such cases Wikipedia will remove the offending material), although Wikipedia doesn't take legal threats (remember: words are cheap, deeds are dear) seriously unless you make them on Wikipedia proper which will then result in a quick ban.

This is again another mudslinging attempt at anyone questining Wikipedia.

Posted by: Toledo Thu 5th April 2007, 3:49am

Libel under Florida law is a civil tort, not a crime. According to Florida statute, "the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory." What was false and defamatory about your company in the Wikipedia article?

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 3:52am

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:44pm) *

In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

It is in the "Talk" section of the article.

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 31st March 2007, 9:21pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:57pm) *
Typical distortion. I notice they are associating the legal threats as coming from WR proper, but we are not an organization with the ability to file lawsuits as a group, but rather a message board in which many people from diverse groups can post...

I know! Do they think we're forming a corporation or something? It's ludicrous. (But hardly surprising...)

Besides, their definition of "legal threat" pretty much means anything in which the word "legal" is included in a sentence. Pointing out legislation that might affect the content of an article is a "legal threat." Vaguely noting that the foundation might be sued for libelous content is a "legal threat." The entire WP:NLT policy is just a blinkering mechanism that lets them pretend that nothing they do ever has consequences. That, too, is ludicrous.

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 6:44pm) *
In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

Looks like much of the dispute was over the relationship of the modern company with the original...? The WP folks would probably have treated them much better if they'd named it "The American Mutant Biology Company" instead. smile.gif

Actually, I may use that for my own next company...

By the way, welcome to the forum, Toledo! We were sort of hoping for Cleveland, but I suspect you'll do just fine for now!

Hey how about Mutantpedia! lol we have to throw a joke in:) Seriously, go through our website it is documented we are the same company, and it was revived, verified and recorded.

Posted by: Toledo Thu 5th April 2007, 3:56am

QUOTE(biographco @ Wed 4th April 2007, 11:48pm) *
On "Building" a studio lot, no such thing is intended. It was to own land on the moon as a "Lot" as in "Lot" of land. This is where the remote camera would be, just to clarify.
Going through the link provided in the Wikipedia article, this is what the http://web.archive.org/web/20041026000222/http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us/news.html from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company said on July 2, 2003:
QUOTE
Thursday July 2nd, 5:00 pm PT
Biograph Studios establishes first movie lot on the Moon

HOLLYWOOD -- A Hollywood movie production company has established the first movie lot on the moon. Thomas R. Bond, II President and CEO of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (Better known as Biograph) received nearly 2000 acres of lunar real estate and plans to use it as the first lunar lot

Biograph Moon Lot 1776.58 Acres

Latitude 30 Longitude 10

The land was obtained from Hope Enterprises, a company that deals in lunar real estate, and at the end of 2003, Biograph will launch a marker aboard a commercial spacecraft, and place it on its lunar lot. Next year they also plan send a digital film camera at the site to send moving pictures back to Earth that can be used in feature films and commercial production.

Biograph is also known for being the oldest movie company in America, and having made the first movie in Hollywood back in 1910. The company is now making history again.

Bond says Biograph also plans sending a film crew to film the first documentary on the moon in five years. Bond adds "With all the problems in the world we need to look to space again to bring the world together".

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 4:08am

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 31st March 2007, 9:21pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:57pm) *
Typical distortion. I notice they are associating the legal threats as coming from WR proper, but we are not an organization with the ability to file lawsuits as a group, but rather a message board in which many people from diverse groups can post...

I know! Do they think we're forming a corporation or something? It's ludicrous. (But hardly surprising...)

Besides, their definition of "legal threat" pretty much means anything in which the word "legal" is included in a sentence. Pointing out legislation that might affect the content of an article is a "legal threat." Vaguely noting that the foundation might be sued for libelous content is a "legal threat." The entire WP:NLT policy is just a blinkering mechanism that lets them pretend that nothing they do ever has consequences. That, too, is ludicrous.

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 6:44pm) *
In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

Looks like much of the dispute was over the relationship of the modern company with the original...? The WP folks would probably have treated them much better if they'd named it "The American Mutant Biology Company" instead. smile.gif

Actually, I may use that for my own next company...

By the way, welcome to the forum, Toledo! We were sort of hoping for Cleveland, but I suspect you'll do just fine for now!


You are absolutely right. There are no "Legal threats"at Wikipedia. We are investigating legal recourse in defense of biased information, to proctect our company name as any corporation would, that is all.


QUOTE(Toledo @ Wed 4th April 2007, 8:56pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Wed 4th April 2007, 11:48pm) *
On "Building" a studio lot, no such thing is intended. It was to own land on the moon as a "Lot" as in "Lot" of land. This is where the remote camera would be, just to clarify.
Going through the link provided in the Wikipedia article, this is what the http://web.archive.org/web/20041026000222/http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us/news.html from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company said on July 2, 2003:
QUOTE
Thursday July 2nd, 5:00 pm PT
Biograph Studios establishes first movie lot on the Moon

HOLLYWOOD -- A Hollywood movie production company has established the first movie lot on the moon. Thomas R. Bond, II President and CEO of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (Better known as Biograph) received nearly 2000 acres of lunar real estate and plans to use it as the first lunar lot

Biograph Moon Lot 1776.58 Acres

Latitude 30 Longitude 10

The land was obtained from Hope Enterprises, a company that deals in lunar real estate, and at the end of 2003, Biograph will launch a marker aboard a commercial spacecraft, and place it on its lunar lot. Next year they also plan send a digital film camera at the site to send moving pictures back to Earth that can be used in feature films and commercial production.

Biograph is also known for being the oldest movie company in America, and having made the first movie in Hollywood back in 1910. The company is now making history again.

Bond says Biograph also plans sending a film crew to film the first documentary on the moon in five years. Bond adds "With all the problems in the world we need to look to space again to bring the world together".


yes, that is correct. Lunar lot, not building. open land that we claim a right to. notice i said "Claim". yes, we do one day intentend to have a crew filming a documentary on the moon. It is a big dream and yes it can happen. but you must understand, they are not just using this. They are using everything we do or try to do to discredit us by distorting facts, even the company reputation.


QUOTE(biographco @ Wed 4th April 2007, 9:04pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 31st March 2007, 9:21pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:57pm) *
Typical distortion. I notice they are associating the legal threats as coming from WR proper, but we are not an organization with the ability to file lawsuits as a group, but rather a message board in which many people from diverse groups can post...

I know! Do they think we're forming a corporation or something? It's ludicrous. (But hardly surprising...)

Besides, their definition of "legal threat" pretty much means anything in which the word "legal" is included in a sentence. Pointing out legislation that might affect the content of an article is a "legal threat." Vaguely noting that the foundation might be sued for libelous content is a "legal threat." The entire WP:NLT policy is just a blinkering mechanism that lets them pretend that nothing they do ever has consequences. That, too, is ludicrous.

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 6:44pm) *
In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

Looks like much of the dispute was over the relationship of the modern company with the original...? The WP folks would probably have treated them much better if they'd named it "The American Mutant Biology Company" instead. smile.gif

Actually, I may use that for my own next company...

By the way, welcome to the forum, Toledo! We were sort of hoping for Cleveland, but I suspect you'll do just fine for now!


Thanks again for the input...Please review our page

http://biographcompany.com/about_us/awards.html

This has links to verifiable sources to validate who we are. Again, we are a privately held company and like all companies as such we do not hand out any confidential information, only what is on the website.

You are absolutely right. There are no "Legal threats"at Wikipedia. We are investigating legal recourse in defense of biased information, to proctect our company name as any corporation would, that is all.


QUOTE(Toledo @ Wed 4th April 2007, 8:56pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Wed 4th April 2007, 11:48pm) *
On "Building" a studio lot, no such thing is intended. It was to own land on the moon as a "Lot" as in "Lot" of land. This is where the remote camera would be, just to clarify.
Going through the link provided in the Wikipedia article, this is what the http://web.archive.org/web/20041026000222/http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us/news.html from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company said on July 2, 2003:
QUOTE
Thursday July 2nd, 5:00 pm PT
Biograph Studios establishes first movie lot on the Moon

HOLLYWOOD -- A Hollywood movie production company has established the first movie lot on the moon. Thomas R. Bond, II President and CEO of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (Better known as Biograph) received nearly 2000 acres of lunar real estate and plans to use it as the first lunar lot

Biograph Moon Lot 1776.58 Acres

Latitude 30 Longitude 10

The land was obtained from Hope Enterprises, a company that deals in lunar real estate, and at the end of 2003, Biograph will launch a marker aboard a commercial spacecraft, and place it on its lunar lot. Next year they also plan send a digital film camera at the site to send moving pictures back to Earth that can be used in feature films and commercial production.

Biograph is also known for being the oldest movie company in America, and having made the first movie in Hollywood back in 1910. The company is now making history again.

Bond says Biograph also plans sending a film crew to film the first documentary on the moon in five years. Bond adds "With all the problems in the world we need to look to space again to bring the world together".


Yes, that is correct. Lunar lot, not building. open land that we claim a right to. notice we said "Claim". Yes, we do one day intentend to have a crew filming a documentary on the moon. It is a big dream and yes it can happen. But you must understand, they are not just using this. They are using everything we do or try to do to discredit us by distorting facts, even the company reputation.

NOTE: ALSO, SINCE I AM SLIGHTLY HANIDCAPPED (TRUE) PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EDIT ANY TECHNICAL GOOFS I MADE ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS. IT WAS COMPLETELY UNINTENTIONAL:)

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 5:41am

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:44pm) *

In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

It is in the "Talk" pages of the article. they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad.

Posted by: Toledo Thu 5th April 2007, 9:44am

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Posted by: Kathryn Cramer Thu 5th April 2007, 10:42am

QUOTE(biographco @ Thu 5th April 2007, 1:41am) *

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:44pm) *

In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

It is in the "Talk" pages of the article. they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad.


The general issue here is that the existence and practices of Wikipedia force professional PR people to learn and adopt the quaint customs of the Wikipedians, such as anonymity & pseudonymity, disingenuous sneakiness, etc. People who would never think of using anything other than their real name professionally are and will be forced by the practices of Wikipedia to learn how to be like this.

Whether or not something is legally actionable defamation is in some ways beside the point because corporate CEOs are really the ones whose opinion matters as far as the responsibilities of the publicist and corporate legal department go.

Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules & policies prevent civilized resolution of inaccuracies in corporate listings via real word social practice. This problem is only going to get worse.

Posted by: Somey Thu 5th April 2007, 3:28pm

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better muh'self...

Think what you will about the folks who run the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - even if it does seem apparent that they're not quite living in the Real World™ due to their plans to start filming on the Moon in the not-too-distant future, so what? Lots of companies are run by people with all sorts of crazy and/or weird ideas. And frankly, one of these days, some private company probably is going to make movies on the Moon. (Just not next year...) One man's nutcase is another man's "forward thinker," after all!

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't deal with these entities realistically, fairly, or even honestly. If someone puts up an article about a company on Wikipedia, people start combing the internet for dirt on it, and if they find any at all, it gets put in immediately - almost without fail. And so the company is forced to either "defend" the article or ignore it, and in many cases, that decision is almost a no-brainer - if you depend on the internet for revenue, you have to defend it, because Wikipedia is practically ubiquitous these days, what with Google, the scrapers, and certain less-than-professional journalists who use it as a source.

Admittedly, this is to some extent a positive thing, in that it's yet another reason for companies to avoid doing things that are bad. But if the negative information is inaccurate, or even weighted unfairly, peoples' jobs and livelihoods can be jeopardized.

The other thing we have to remember here is that AMBC hasn't really done anything wrong, though of course one can certainly argue that using their website to espouse a particularly strong position on a controversial issue (euthanasia) is not a proper thing for a company to do. (Any progress on moving that stuff off, btw?)

Ultimately it's just another example of why companies should be very, very careful of how they interact with Wikipedia, if they even attempt to do it at all. WP just doesn't play by Real-World rules, as we've seen time and time again.

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 8:08pm

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 5th April 2007, 8:28am) *

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better muh'self...

Think what you will about the folks who run the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - even if it does seem apparent that they're not quite living in the Real World™ due to their plans to start filming on the Moon in the not-too-distant future, so what? Lots of companies are run by people with all sorts of crazy and/or weird ideas. And frankly, one of these days, some private company probably is going to make movies on the Moon. (Just not next year...) One man's nutcase is another man's "forward thinker," after all!

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't deal with these entities realistically, fairly, or even honestly. If someone puts up an article about a company on Wikipedia, people start combing the internet for dirt on it, and if they find any at all, it gets put in immediately - almost without fail. And so the company is forced to either "defend" the article or ignore it, and in many cases, that decision is almost a no-brainer - if you depend on the internet for revenue, you have to defend it, because Wikipedia is practically ubiquitous these days, what with Google, the scrapers, and certain less-than-professional journalists who use it as a source.

Admittedly, this is to some extent a positive thing, in that it's yet another reason for companies to avoid doing things that are bad. But if the negative information is inaccurate, or even weighted unfairly, peoples' jobs and livelihoods can be jeopardized.

The other thing we have to remember here is that AMBC hasn't really done anything wrong, though of course one can certainly argue that using their website to espouse a particularly strong position on a controversial issue (euthanasia) is not a proper thing for a company to do. (Any progress on moving that stuff off, btw?)

Ultimately it's just another example of why companies should be very, very careful of how they interact with Wikipedia, if they even attempt to do it at all. WP just doesn't play by Real-World rules, as we've seen time and time again.

I want to thank all for thier input. Great stuff. First, the "Moon" story I had explained before and what the intentions were. Yes, there still is a good possibility of having a camera on the moon by 2008 if funding can be acquired. I would also like to point out that in the real world the space program exists and so does commercial moon ventures. you can validate thjis all over the internet. But the "Moon" subject is truly irrelevant.

Wikipedia is attempting to use this to use this as only to discredit the company. Quote:

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE example. There are many more statements like this. using information to discredit ones reputation IN WRITING is slander. PLEASE read ll the archives on the Wikipedia article carefully.

On the "Euthanansia" program, we had put that on the backburner and are switching that to the Biograph TV website anyway. But to make a point, if Fox News, CNN or Dateline did a story like this, would it be in the "Real World"? OF COURSE. This is because they are the "Big Boys". We are a small but visible company taking on positions and projects only "Big" company's usually do, and we have a right to. This is the USA the last time I checked and everyone has the opprotunity to speak freely and to do business freely and legally without harrassment, or vindictive recourse from others.

On the last subject, for everyone at Wikipedia review, here are links of just a few of the harrassment cases involving Wikipedia. Thank you all for comments and keep them coming. Enjoy and thanks again!


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia/

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/01/content_499446.htm

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/06/WIKI.TMP

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorship48480602.html

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/wikitort.html

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html

Thomas Bond II
Biograph Company

Posted by: biographco Thu 5th April 2007, 8:22pm

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sun 1st April 2007, 10:04am) *

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. Here in Ohio, it's also one year. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

The statute of limitations on libel (published) or slander (spoken) in the state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated, is two years.

Which part of the article is libelous?


The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more.

Thanks!

Thomas



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."


This is just one from Wikipedia "Talk" page...

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks for all comments!




Posted by: Toledo Fri 6th April 2007, 12:40am

QUOTE(biographco @ Thu 5th April 2007, 4:22pm) *
The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more.
For writing to be libelous, there must be an assertion of fact that is both false and defamatory. An opinion that is not an assertion of fact (e.g., "the new Biograph is not to be taken seriously") is protected speech.

What in the section of the article about your company is factually false and defamatory?

Posted by: biographco Fri 6th April 2007, 2:53am

QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 5:40pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Thu 5th April 2007, 4:22pm) *
The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more.
For writing to be libelous, there must be an assertion of fact that is both false and defamatory. An opinion that is not an assertion of fact (e.g., "the new Biograph is not to be taken seriously") is protected speech.

What in the section of the article about your company is factually false and defamatory?

Thank you for your response. I am not an attorney, and have to consult our people. If I get an OK to reval more information on this, I will let you know, but I can tell you now, according to our people, the fact that they are using a fact for a purpose and intent to de-fame the party involved does fall under libel and that it is not expressed as an opinion. In all fairness, it is way more complicated. It does show that the "Editors" do hgave an agenda to discredit the company by leaving the insertion in, not just leaving it in for informational purposes. Honestly, the more they do this, the better it is for us.

Posted by: Uly Fri 6th April 2007, 2:27pm

There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation'

If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer.

Posted by: Cedric Fri 6th April 2007, 5:27pm

QUOTE(Uly @ Fri 6th April 2007, 9:27am) *

There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation'

If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer.

In general, yes. However, some states also recognize "false light" claims, which do not necessarily require a knowingly false statement. A selective accounting of the facts will be enough, if an intent to place the plaintiff in a false light can be shown. However, it is my understanding that false light claims are rather hard to prove. But then, much the same can be said for about any defamation case. I should imagine that any company considering such a claim would do better to consult with an outside attorney with a strong background in defamation and media law before seriously pursuing such a case.

Posted by: Toledo Sat 7th April 2007, 1:51am

62A Am. Jur. 2d Privacy § 128:

QUOTE
The false-light claim is closely allied with an action for defamation, and the same considerations apply to each. For both actions the matter publicized must be in fact false, it must be "published" or communicated to third parties, and the publication must be made with some degree of fault on the part of the originating party.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977):
QUOTE
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(B) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

[B]Comment:

a. Nature of Section. The form of invasion of privacy covered by the rule stated in this Section does not depend upon making public any facts concerning the private life of the individual. On the contrary, it is essential to the rule stated in this Section that the matter published concerning the plaintiff is not true.

50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander § 27:
QUOTE
The burden of proving falsity rests upon the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff cannot prove the falsity of a particular statement, the statement will not support an action for defamation. At common law, however, a defendant had the burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement as an affirmative defense. United States Supreme Court cases have declared a new rule requiring the plaintiff to prove falsity in cases where damages are sought for speech of public concern, at least in cases with media defendants; the lower courts have extended the Supreme Court's ruling to non-media defendants.

Posted by: biographco Sat 7th April 2007, 3:42am

QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Toledo, I need to look it up, it has been awhile and when I find it I will list. Thanks again


QUOTE(Uly @ Fri 6th April 2007, 7:27am) *

There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation'

If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer.

What we were going on is "Intent". If you state let's say, you wanted to one be an astrounaut, and possibly could if you were in the proper situation, you could. But, a certain group continued to barade you publicly on how "Stupid" you are, that you have no creditability, and so forth, that is just harassment with malicious intent. It IS true what you said, you DID want to become an astronaut, but the harassment that follows is what is the problem. If it is the intent of a person to discredit another by using information, the intent is there. Again I state, we may not have a chance in court. I do not know. There are alot of "If's" internet freedoms, etc. I do not know if we will go to court, altough we hold all options open. I do know that the more Wikipedia attempts is malicious towards the company for no reason, the better it is for us. I do believe there are alterior motives here.

Posted by: biographco Sat 7th April 2007, 7:08pm

QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

I don't want to repeat the listing but it's posted, it is on the "Moon" subject.

Posted by: Toledo Sat 7th April 2007, 8:08pm

One comment from one editor = "they mention it several times"?

He (or she) isn't even the editor who added the section on the moon lot; he's commenting on some other editor's addition of the section about the moon lot.

Posted by: biographco Sat 7th April 2007, 11:58pm

QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Because of time constraints, I cannot give you the edtails, but this week I will post. One definate was the earlier posting about imentionally attempting to make the company look non-creditable. That is as direct as you can get.

Posted by: biographco Sun 8th April 2007, 12:11am

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 5th April 2007, 8:28am) *

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better muh'self...

Think what you will about the folks who run the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - even if it does seem apparent that they're not quite living in the Real World™ due to their plans to start filming on the Moon in the not-too-distant future, so what? Lots of companies are run by people with all sorts of crazy and/or weird ideas. And frankly, one of these days, some private company probably is going to make movies on the Moon. (Just not next year...) One man's nutcase is another man's "forward thinker," after all!

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't deal with these entities realistically, fairly, or even honestly. If someone puts up an article about a company on Wikipedia, people start combing the internet for dirt on it, and if they find any at all, it gets put in immediately - almost without fail. And so the company is forced to either "defend" the article or ignore it, and in many cases, that decision is almost a no-brainer - if you depend on the internet for revenue, you have to defend it, because Wikipedia is practically ubiquitous these days, what with Google, the scrapers, and certain less-than-professional journalists who use it as a source.

Admittedly, this is to some extent a positive thing, in that it's yet another reason for companies to avoid doing things that are bad. But if the negative information is inaccurate, or even weighted unfairly, peoples' jobs and livelihoods can be jeopardized.

The other thing we have to remember here is that AMBC hasn't really done anything wrong, though of course one can certainly argue that using their website to espouse a particularly strong position on a controversial issue (euthanasia) is not a proper thing for a company to do. (Any progress on moving that stuff off, btw?)

Ultimately it's just another example of why companies should be very, very careful of how they interact with Wikipedia, if they even attempt to do it at all. WP just doesn't play by Real-World rules, as we've seen time and time again.

First, thank you for your input it is always appreciated. On the company being attacked because of a particular controversial stance that has nothing to do with th company's validity, is ridiculous, let alone irrelevent. Michael Moore (Filmmaker) espoused a strong position on a very controversial subject in his film(s). I know Mike, he lives in the "Real" world and is a very good producer. But, that is what independent filmmakers do. This was not a "Website" opinion, it is a project that we are working on for release. Everyone has an opinion, which is fine. Trying to discredit or attack a company for NO reason smells. There are alterior motives here, seriously. As stated in the Wikipedia Review, editors could be even paid off to do "Things". This is very possible and can happen. I do close with the more they attack us, the better it is for us. When the legal hammer falls, it will fall hard and silent and it will be on them.


QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 7th April 2007, 1:08pm) *

One comment from one editor = "they mention it several times"?

He (or she) isn't even the editor who added the section on the moon lot; he's commenting on some other editor's addition of the section about the moon lot.

That is true, it is messed up.

Posted by: Toledo Sun 8th April 2007, 2:54am

QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 7th April 2007, 7:58pm) *
Because of time constraints, I cannot give you the edtails, but this week I will post. One definate was the earlier posting about imentionally attempting to make the company look non-creditable. That is as direct as you can get.
So far, you have quoted only one editor making one comment, Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Posted by: biographco Sun 8th April 2007, 4:40am

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 7th April 2007, 7:54pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 7th April 2007, 7:58pm) *
Because of time constraints, I cannot give you the details, but this week I will post. One definate was the earlier posting about attempting to make the company look non-creditable. That is as direct as you can get.
So far, you have quoted only one editor making one comment, Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Toledo, was this posting above on Wikipedia. This is one of our problematic "Editors". I do thank you Toledo for letting me see that again, but their biased opinions are irrelevent at this time. Our people only periodically review Wikipedia as any company should. It is obvious of thier intent in the "Real" world, outside the Wiki-world. Again, the more they discredit, the better.

Posted by: biographco Sun 8th April 2007, 12:35pm

QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

Refering to the "Moon" press release...

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

Posted by: dtobias Sun 8th April 2007, 4:10pm

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Posted by: biographco Sun 8th April 2007, 7:29pm

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.


QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. It is alsonot included in the article as an "Opinion, but as a "Fact". Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.


Posted by: biographco Tue 10th April 2007, 9:27pm

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 12:29pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.


QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. It is alsonot included in the article as an "Opinion, but as a "Fact". Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.

Also, I noticed you are one of the "Editors" making unsavory aka (Crackpot) remarks against me and the company. They "Editors" will also be held accountable.