It seems things didn't go well for Peter Bowditch in his struggle with the Australian Communications Network. The ACN is likely a pyramid scheme, and at one time the judges agreed. I would be peppering this upcoming text with links to stuff other than a bunch of Homestar Runner cartoons, but since Peter was forced to take down his copious amounts of information on them, I'll have to make do with my memory until I can improve my search-fu to find alternate sources or mirror sites. (Thanks go to Skeptico for reminding me about Wayback, though they don't seem to have recent enough version to include ACN's specific complaints.) Some of the activities ACN engaged in:
They dressed up a photo of an office building, removing a logo, hinting that they owned the entire building, while the company actually worked in one small piece of that building. When Peter showed a picture of the building next to an unedited photo, ACN got him to take off the modified photo, claiming that the editing process made it an original and copywrited piece of art, effectively confessing to their dishonesty.
When legal threats about the content of Peter's articles came in, he offered them several opportunities to provide him with corrections for any factual errors, they apparently never responded in a civilized manner (which would mean providing corrections), preferring to stick with their SLAPP in the face.
The legal climate of Australia seemed to benefit ACN (as well as any fraud currently being exposed), since apparently there is no explicit freedom of speech in Australia, and current libel laws seem to carry a presumption of guilt. I'm glad I live in some place vaguely resembling the United States of America they taught us about in school.
If anyone knows of a mirror site that has kept Peter's original articles, or someone else who's been standing up to ACN, please tell me... While you're at it, you might want to mirror this blog entry, just in case. I'll try to update as I get more stuff to refer to.
P.S.: Before anyone accuses either me or Peter of misspelling: His blog isn't about a thousand years. That's why he's an "n" short.
EDIT: Some comments have been deleted, so no, I wasn't debating a figment of my imagination. Hopefully, that anonymous commenter is washing his mouth (typing fingers?) out with soap, and writing up the math behind a viable ACN business model. I'm not against dissent, but I don't like posts that don't contribute in any meaningful way.
14 comments:
You could try the wayback machine:
http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
Thanks for reminding me about that. Updated.
Yeah, lost in a battle in a country with no explicit freedom of speech and plaintiff-biased libel laws that presume guilt. Its easy to win when the legalistic deck is stacked against truth, isn't it, anonymous?
Funny. He's a liar, even though a good portion of what he posted was logical conclusions based on ACN quotes.
You have no idea what I meant by "plaintiff-biased," do you? It means that anyone can make a baseless accusation and the courts will innately favor them.
Besides, if Peter was a liar, or simply mistaken, ACN could have simply told him corrections to be made when he asked for them. Instead, they performed the barbaric act of a SLAPP lawsuit. What do you expect me to believe when ACN acts like every con artist out there?
Somehow, I don't think you've bothered read his website, anonymous. He was perfectly willing to correct any errors in his website. ACN pointed out none. Perhaps you'd like to give me a list, rather than making your broad, empty claims?
And again, you have no idea what I meant by "plaintiff-biased." I mean the system presumes guilt, not innocence. Peter was innocent.
Maybe while you're at it, you should show me the math behind a viable ACN business model.
I'll just add my "LOL!" in reply to Anon's silly ignoramicus brief on the issue.
That was fast. Part of me was debating whether to keep anon's posts as a bad examples, once I was given admin power, or to delete them so that more reasonable ACN people wouldn't have to overcome the prejudice instilled by that guy. I guess Ryan rendered that internal debate moot just now.
Just to be clear for anyone posting pro-ACN comments: Inability to spell Peter's name without curse words isn't likely to convince anyone of your intellect.
Or....it could be that Peter Bowditch known liar, forger, defamor, libelist, and cheat simply got his just dues. Let's not forget that this is not the first time Bowditch has been convicted of being a lair.
Wish I found this comment a month earlier.
Of course, Peter wasn't "convicted" of anything, literally or figuratively. He settled, because lawyers aren't going to let the law get in their way. Corporation versus civic-minded individual: Civic-minded individual usually loses, either by force of money making the trial unfair, or by being forced to spend his money defending against false charges. As one old non-sequitur cartoon went "Bankrupt: Stood on principle. Won my case." Peter simply chose not to go for the bankrupt option.
I suppose by anonymous's definition, the guy who made the Cthulu parody of Jack Chick was guilty of copyright violation, despite being specifically protected as parody by the Fair Use Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976.
"Civic minded"? Is that what it's called when one get caught lying, defaming, libelling, defrauding, beating one's children and spouse and being charged with assault?
Thanks for clearing that up!
Nice way to make stuff up. It's not libel or defamation if it's true.
Lurkers: Notice how anonymous avoids addressing the actual issue: The evidence that ACN is a pyramid scheme.
Note for future commenters: Stories of how Peter Bowditch kicks puppies and eats babies don't change anything. Robert Lancaster knows a thing or two about that overt distraction tactic.
Any posts about Peter Bowditch being the reincarnation of Hitler and Ghengis Khan will be deleted for being off-topic. If a person says grass is green, it's still green. His Hitlerness changes nothing.
The topic is ACN's status as a pyramid scheme and their efforts to prevent people from examining the evidence.
I know this was a year ago, but if I found it, others might. The rhetoric of "anonymous" sounds very much like that of one William P. O'Neil of the Canadian Cancer Research Group and that of another "anonymous" who uses his computers to send abuse to Mr. Bowditch on a regular basis. If anyone wants to see if they agree that the anonymous here sounds like Mr. O'Neil and those others who use his computers, check out http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/onews/onews.htm. Warning: Do not go there if you are easily offended by profanity and scatology!
Post a Comment