Biograph Company, Open slander and harrassment Options

[biographco]

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.

[anon1234]

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.

[Somey]

By far!

I found this archived AN entry. 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 large dossier of links 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?

[biographco]

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.

By far!

I found this archived AN entry. 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 large dossier of links 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.



This post has been edited by biographco:

[anon1234]

From AN/I:

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.

[Toledo]

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

This post has been edited by Toledo:

[Somey]

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.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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!

[guy]

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Somey]

Cleveland is in North-East England and Toledo is in Spain - or is this some American joke? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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 mentioned, 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!

[Toledo]

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?

[Toledo]

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 posted: "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."

[Somey]

...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?

[biographco]

...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.

This post has been edited by biographco:

[biographco]

Cleveland is in North-East England and Toledo is in Spain - or is this some American joke? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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 mentioned, 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.

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?

From AN/I:

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.


This post has been edited by biographco:

[Toledo]

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?

[biographco]

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

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

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.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

[Toledo]

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 press release from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company said on July 2, 2003:

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".

[biographco]

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.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

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 press release from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company said on July 2, 2003:

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.

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.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.

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 press release from the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company said on July 2, 2003:

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:)

This post has been edited by biographco:

[biographco]

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.

[Toledo]

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."