CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Big thread - had not made it that far through as yet.
Thanks for the link.
"I Stand With ..." is a provocative name. You'd do better arriving at a more neutral name and position it as a non-partisan information portal.
I worry that too.
Big thread - had not made it that far through as yet.
No problem. I recommend, if you are the creator of the new FB page, that you change it from "Standing with CBS" to something more neutral. I think picking sides, this whole us-vs.-them rhetoric needs to be toned down if you really want to be for "factual updates about the case and links to intelligent articles on the matter".
Because sticking with the same formula will probably end with the same results.
edit: Call it Axanar: The Trial with Trekkies
Last edited:
And I expect more quickly as well. Reopening it is, I think, is a bad idea.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yeah, the CBS page was fun, we shared a lot, we made jokes, we kept up on news, but there's really no point, now.
Thing is, Squiggy did about as good a job with that page as anyone could - it was for fun, an opportunity to poke a hole in the solemn gas bags and head cases running an expensive project into the ground through either incompetence or malfeasance and boasting every step of the way.
It was fun.
It was fun.
Thing is, Squiggy did about as good a job with that page as anyone could - it was for fun, an opportunity to poke a hole in the solemn gas bags and head cases running an expensive project into the ground through either incompetence or malfeasance and boasting every step of the way.
It was fun.
It was one of those moments in time that you can't recapture, just like the Axanar donors won't recapture their donations.
I ended up leaving the original Stand with CBS group before this shitshow went down, because I could foresee something bad was gonna happen. I'm gonna stay far away from this new one, as well.
Thing is, Squiggy did about as good a job with that page as anyone could - it was for fun, an opportunity to poke a hole in the solemn gas bags and head cases running an expensive project into the ground through either incompetence or malfeasance and boasting every step of the way.
It was fun.
Yeah, been there before. This ain't my first rodeo. Nascent communities of like-minded people grow and blossom, and it's all fun, and then things get too real and out of hand, and then people get hurt, or at least the potential arises.
That spirit can't be recaptured, it's done.
And the last thing we need is the fomentation of any animosity about the FB group being shut down. Peters' was understandably disturbed by his inevitable doxing on a massive social network, and Squiggy was quite prudent in shutting things down so as to pre-empt things getting any more tense.
I'd salt the earth and nuke from orbit.
Yes, it is. But if you were going to get bent out of shape that you have an address that could make the rounds out there, especially with the way Alec Peters likes to put himself into controversial elements, would you not make that expense?
I really don't think the cost is that big. But then again, I have not inquired about the cost. Maybe the Pakmail site would have that?
Per his claim, yet not per actions. I used to be like many people and buy domain names privately that I just wanted to hang on to for potential future ideas. If I didn't want it to get out, I would pay an extra couple dollars to make it private.
Or, you could have made sure that it was not part of the public discourse to begin with. But then again, that's just blame deflection.
Um, because it's not independent corroboration? You simply heard a story from someone else ... that is not independent corroboration. To have an effective independent corroboration, you have to have two people with actual knowledge (typically participants) that, independently, arrived at specific information that is being provided. And that has to be provable in some way.
For instance, someone hears that Ian McKellen is going to be in the X-Men movie, and that person tells both Mary and me separately. Then Mary tells me. I ask Mary the source, and she says the same person that told me. That's not independent corroboration.
Maybe. But I was linking to a public document that anyone could access. Seriously, I could've done what, blacked out the address, and but still provided all the information, that would've taken anyone a simple Google search and about 18 seconds to find? While at the same time, people bitching that I simply didn't link to the document.
::shrugs::
Seems somebody has not yet updated their Youtube channel's "About" section
Yeah, the original was fine as a laugh at the expense of self-serious wasters posting 300 memes with Axanar on them, but trying to convince people that an FB group based on a one-liner is going to become a clearing house of impartial discussion about the lawsuit was a mistake, of course it wasn't. The longer it goes the likelier it will be to devolve into vindictive rubbernecking or to produce and/or attract outright Crazy.
I am confused by this statement. Alec seemed to have the same confusion, so let me clarify this in case I may have muddled up some of the information, or simply wasn't that clear.
This is not about the purchase of a townhouse. It was not part of the original discussion, until Peters made a clarification.
This is about a Florida corporation that Alec Peters and a woman in Florida who has her name listed near the top of Axanar's leadership created in February 2015, about 11 months ago. The question pointed to the corporate record that is available to anyone doing even a cursory search on the Internet for the name of the company. On that record was an address, listed as this company's business address, which was located in Orange County.
In cross-referencing the business address, I found publicly available information that the business address was purchased by Peters in March 2013, most likely from the developer (considering the seller had purchased the property when it was deemed "vacant.")
The purchase of the house itself in March 2013 was not the question. The question was what Alec Peters was doing creating what he called an "investments" company in February 2015, around the same time his group was raising $1.1 million for Axanar. What was the investments that Peters was looking to do, and with what capital?
Tying it to the "purchase" of the house was drawn by Peters, telling me that he was advised by counsel in early 2015 to put the house under a corporate ownership. If that is actually the case, he only half-followed the advice, because he formed the corporation, but the property has not been transferred to the company — something that could be solved inexpensively and quickly with a quitclaim deed.
Nearly a year after the corporation was filed, nothing has happened with the corporation, including using it as the new owner for the property. So it returns to the question of what the company was for? And it could be a very innocent answer. It's just that so far, there are no actions — including actions that are apparent — that would match up with the answers provided.
A
Amaris
Guest
That, and as @Squiggy was mentioning earlier, our time to shut it down was probably when the incident with his workplace happened. Once that started going on, things were getting ridiculous, and it was only going to escalate from there. I think he's right on that, that we should have stopped then, if for no other reason than to protect his privacy, too.
- Status