A high-voiced criminal.
I saw that you requested permission and, so far, nobody has granted it.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I saw that you requested permission and, so far, nobody has granted it.
High voiced because Alec Peters has no balls...
Now, and I assume he is reading these posts, I now challenge Mr Peters to prove he has balls
With his penchant for video exhibitionism, are you sure?
If he has nothing to hide, he should be only too happy to refute the claims that he has no testicles...
Go on, Alec, me old son... I bloody well dare you
Whom I'm hypothesizing are primarily the native media [EDITED TO ADD: and/or these New Media producers] (backers) with Mr. Peters (fan), who when questioned was he going to be one of them, did not deny but instead deflected saying he would tell anything to tell to supporters first.
And the wording "taking over the 'management'" sidesteps commercial transaction, right?
So the new company that is 'not' commercially transacting a purchase of the studio - then "reimburses" the money spent to build the studio by the production that is also 'not' commercially transacting a sale - . Not exchanging money for goods, but "reimbursing" the money spent on them and taking them over. So again side stepping a commercial transaction with different wording, right?
Which I'm hypothesizing are the native media advertising productions [EDITED TO ADD: and/or these New Media productions] for the immediate future. ( With Mr. Peters' expectation of the film in current litigation in the near future, and for at least his own film projects in the following future.)
That would get the film, or some alternate concept of it, depending on the lawsuit, made without the creation of a commercial venture.
Right?
Mr. Hinman used 'private investors', Mr. Peters used 'backers' (and fans), and stated they will be raising 'investment dollars' for capital.
That covers my hypothesis with the use of the word investors, right?
Last edited:
got it.. do strongly suggest tho that you go back and edit out the graphic part asap since it is not what you meant. not only do I think its something the board emphatically doesn't condone, but its presence may cause problems.
Nah... He's called for haters to be "sorted out"... I think I'll play at a level he understands
It could be. I wonder what the accounting of donor money sunk into the assets would amount to. I guess it would come down to whether the money back actually represents the donor money sunk into it and the sweat equity sunk into it by volunteers and underpaid professionals. If Alec were a part owner of this other company, it could mean he would be cashing in on the sweat equity. I agree it would be best to offer donors the money back.
I guess I am going to have to leave this to the mods to sort out. I think you put the board at risk by posting such things, aside from it not being acceptable territory for the discussion. I tried to advise you a quick fix... really think you should think of this board, not about some imagined interaction with Mr. Peters...
I'm just wondering, and this is one for the legal members of the board to think about and answer, but is there any way that Alec can win?
God... You really a bloody spoilt sport, muCephi- one way to sort you out *reaches for ignore button*
God... You really a bloody spoilt sport, muCephi- one way to sort you out *reaches for ignore button*
I'd also be interested in knowing how much room there is in copyright law for the concept of waiver.
Theoretically you hold those rights until they expire by statute, but I also recall hearing some discussion to the effect that Warner Brothers created that recent "Looney Tunes Show" for Cartoon Network in order to keep its rights in the characters from getting stale.
Theoretically you hold those rights until they expire by statute, but I also recall hearing some discussion to the effect that Warner Brothers created that recent "Looney Tunes Show" for Cartoon Network in order to keep its rights in the characters from getting stale.
Hey, guys, both of you contribute well, here. The subject of these near-800 pages has "turned" on us fans and the love we have for Star Trek. Let's not turn on each other.
Alec threatened to have the haters dealt with - where I come from, that means attacked... If he wants to play dirty, I'll show him what one mildly annoyed Yorkshireman can do.
Now, is there any way that Alec can win?
Oddly, I also heard that same rumour
More schoolyard.
I don't care about Mr. Peters or anything about Axanar or this case other than watching with amazement how much mob denial is going on here about this 763-page dogpile.
As the most basic rule of this entire site to attack the post and not the person has obviously been "summarily dismissed" for the purpose of Mr. Peters, I'm not going to waste anyone's time by reporting these posts. It wouldn't matter and I don't make a habit of it anyway. The whole thing is insidious and I stand by my previous statement that this thread and the industry building around it is just as stupid and dumb as the news industry built around the spectacle and personalities of the OJ trial.
That's us, captains of industry.
Whereas Alec is a Captain of crap, theft and deception
Then why keep visiting this thread? No one is making you watch this "763-page dogpile."
Which interestingly brings up another point Mr. Bawden made in the Trekzone Pt 2 video. He said the production has now hired an accountant to get the account books in order. They are then going to be handed over to (I don't remember how he phrased it so I'll just say) to an independent third party to check and confirm.
Sooo.... if the for profit entity being lined up [EDITED to reflect my lack of ability to corroborate Mr. Peters actually saying 'commercial project']
Hold on - did he just say Peters actually said the studio is a commercial project?? I thought that it being a commercial project was being flatly denied.
[EDIT: I can as yet find no evidence that Peters actually said this]
Anyway.... so if this for profit entity is in fact going to reimburse the fan donated money it invested in the studio I would presume 'they' are going to Insist on having a full and exact accounting of exactly how much verifiable expenditures they will be refunding.
Now where this becomes interesting to me was in the video, speaking to Carlos' concerns over the unclear accounting made so far, Mr. Bawden told us about the hired accountant taking over the books.
Which at the time I just took to mean that finally the production was taking measures to address all these accounting concerns being brought up.
Which I'm now thinking is possibly 'not' because of all these concerns but instead because the for profit entity is not going to offer reimbursement on a vague accounting system.
Huh.
Last edited:
That's the predictably evasive question living in denial. It doesn't matter why.
Heh, nice, as if...
- Status