So say we all
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Can we just move past a bad joke and get back to paddling the douchecanoe? 
He got this one wrong = CHECK
Now, about the 'ONCE AGAIN' part. I would like more information on this.
(sorry, Thread, I was asking rmb.
I don't have Twitter so I can't speak directly to him.)
Last edited:
Ernie,
Thanks for letting me know about my broken email link on AxaMonitor. I've fixed it now.
But it ties in nicely to Axanar:
Does that not describe how Alec Peters (and to some extent Ms. Ranahan) treated the pre-trial process?????
I'm not a lawyer and I don't write about them for TV. (disclaimer)
Seems Bait and switch laws were intended to protect the Retail Customer. But it appears a case was won using the Bait and switch argument in 2012 for a donation to an Oklahoma hospital. It took 2 years in court and the donor was returned his donation plus $500,000 award for damages.
The Winner of that lawsuit was a man named Garth Brooks.
Seems Bait and switch laws were intended to protect the Retail Customer. But it appears a case was won using the Bait and switch argument in 2012 for a donation to an Oklahoma hospital. It took 2 years in court and the donor was returned his donation plus $500,000 award for damages.
The Winner of that lawsuit was a man named Garth Brooks.
Yes, all. I wasn't actually advocating lynching or violence of any kind. It was meant to be a little levity and I honestly didn't think it was necessary to actually clarify this statement because I frankly didn't think anyone would actually take it seriously. Goodness! 
Doesn't matter, it gives someone a chance to hit the report button for a few words typed in jest.Yes, all. I wasn't actually advocating lynching or violence of any kind. It was meant to be a little levity and I honestly didn't think it was necessary to actually clarify this statement because I frankly didn't think anyone would actually take it seriously. Goodness!
ohhh. Okay, thanks.
That's interesting, that thread.
On one hand it reminds me of a lawyering tactic sometimes employed in court cases when there is a witness who gives or is expected to give evidence that can't be refuted and could likely have impact on a jury decision; the tactic has to be to not discredit the testimony, because you can't, but instead discredit the witness.
On another hand there is this matter that many of us like myself just keep scrutinizing everything in minute detail & keep raising questions on explanations given that are not ringing true to us. Because speaking for myself, the defendant has completely destroyed my trust in him, and since I've not seen demonstrated a change in personal behavior or what I recognize as duplicitous behavior, everything this person says and does is become suspect to me. And important, to me.
So me and lots of others keep interminably bringing up the donor money + the latest IGG crowdfund re-appropriated funds to pay for the cross country move of our donor funded sets/office furnishings and the defendant's personal prop sales business + the lease itself + the early lease break where our donor funds built studio has been transferred to landlordDanny. (to hit the highlights of our issues)
Now what is a time honored tried and true method used to get focus off something you're doing? Create a diversion to get the focus on something else.
And so it is now coming to light (<---needs a Big spotlight shining on it) that a diversion was intentionally created. And information is now showing up that gives evidence of leading directly back to the defendant as the perpetrator or author of it. And what is the diversion? To discredit the author of the continuing compilation of the facts in thiswholething which the defendant is unable to refute.
Two birds - One stone
Focus Off the shenanigans, and On the (metaphorically) discredited witness who's testimony cannot be refuted.
And what are the results?
-Within hours of the refocus it is learned that the defendant is the perpetrator of giving fraudulent information to intentionally cause the discredit of a person. More shenanigans.
-Which gives some of the donor/supporters a deliciously fun Ninny Ninny Boo Boo moment.
-And created an even stronger resolve in the activists dissenting, for the absolute Need to keep critically monitoring the activities of every single thing the defendant says and does to alert our Fandom, and the genre public, when we detect actions that go against the public interest. Because he has just demonstrated a brand new method he will use, along with the lengths he will go, to get what he wants, at the expense of other people... and their money.
So while it didn't backfire on him at all with some of his donor/supporters --- it did backfire big time on him with the activist dissenters.
I honestly don't think that move was well thought out.
I wonder what his chess rating is.
Last edited:
It reminds me of that lawyering tactic of lying on the witness stand, that results in that lawyer losing the case and getting disbarred.
And Axanar NEVER said, they are lying. Hence the logic!To quote the TOS episode "I Mudd":
NORMAN: "You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie. You tell the truth. But you cannot for. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain."
Last edited:
Let me get this straight.
If Alec tells a lie, his toadies say it's absolute gospel and repeat the lie. When Carlos reports it, he's a liar and a stalker to boot. When Alec is shown to have intentionally lied, his toadies say good on him for lying, because Carlos is a liar and a stalker to boot. And he doesn't know anything about film production, either (nyah nyah).
And people wonder why this thread is still going strong.
If Alec tells a lie, his toadies say it's absolute gospel and repeat the lie. When Carlos reports it, he's a liar and a stalker to boot. When Alec is shown to have intentionally lied, his toadies say good on him for lying, because Carlos is a liar and a stalker to boot. And he doesn't know anything about film production, either (nyah nyah).
And people wonder why this thread is still going strong.
Great podcast, thanks for sharing. Your guest was great, really made me aware of how under-represented (or mis-represented) people from Mexican/Latin heritage are in the media. I think my biggest exposure to that segment of the US population was probably in Orange Is The New Black, but I have no basis for determining how accurate that was (I am a white Englishman BTW)
I try not to think about it. It gives me headaches!
It annoys me that most are cast/written as common criminals. OITNB is a great mixed cast where everyone gets a nice backstory, but one of my favourites is Dexter - the Latino influence is quite strong throughout, but the more prominent non-white characters are all professionals which can be a rare trend.
I think the only error Lane has made was creating the blog in the first place :/
Too bad you can't get everyone who donated to hit every social media site with one question: "where's the Axanar movie?"
Yes, there's the lawsuit and failed studio. But other groups have been able to bring feature-length fan films to us, beginning to end, for as little as $25,000 (Star Trek: Horizon). Star Trek Continues has made eight episodes (roughly four feature-length films) for a few hundred-thousand. Surely the mastermind that is Alec Peters should've been able to save out $25,000 out of the $1.4+ million raised to make a movie?
Surely there should have been a contingency plan in place to provide what was promised, even at a scaled back level, if the studio and lawsuit went belly up...
Yes, there's the lawsuit and failed studio. But other groups have been able to bring feature-length fan films to us, beginning to end, for as little as $25,000 (Star Trek: Horizon). Star Trek Continues has made eight episodes (roughly four feature-length films) for a few hundred-thousand. Surely the mastermind that is Alec Peters should've been able to save out $25,000 out of the $1.4+ million raised to make a movie?
Surely there should have been a contingency plan in place to provide what was promised, even at a scaled back level, if the studio and lawsuit went belly up...
- Status