In this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7820
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
From what I can gather, the company of that name was active in the
early days of motion pictures, from the 1890s through the 1920s, but faded out and went completely out of business by the 1930s. Somebody with no apparent true connection with the original company went into business in the 1990s under that name (long after all of the original company's copyrights and trademarks had lapsed into the public domain), and is making questionable claims at being the legitimate continuer of the original company's tradition, along with some other wacky claims such as saying they have purchased land on the Moon on which they soon will be filming movies.
Of course, Wikipedia is "evil" because it fails to take all of this guy's claims at face value, and persists in having an article about the classic original company (which is legitimately notable in the early history of the movie industry) with only a brief paragraph noting the existence of an unrelated new company of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
Naturally, this guy's claims and whines are getting a favorable reception over on Wikipedia Review, where they see no anti-Wikipedia rant they don't like.
On 31/03/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
In this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7820
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
"In 2003, Biograph announced that it had acquired title to 1,777 acres on the Moon for use as a filming location, and Thomas R. Bond II stated that he planned to start filming there by 2008.[24]"
The guy's a kook, evidently.
Apparently even kooks aren't safe from scammers. No one owns the moon, so it's impossible for anyone tell sell part of the moon's surface. It looks like he's been scammed big time. (This is similar to the star scam. Some people were thought that for a certain amount a star would be named after them which was fake too).
Mgm
On 3/31/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/03/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
In this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7820
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
"In 2003, Biograph announced that it had acquired title to 1,777 acres on the Moon for use as a filming location, and Thomas R. Bond II stated that he planned to start filming there by 2008.[24]"
The guy's a kook, evidently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/31/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
In this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7820
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
From what I can gather, the company of that name was active in the early days of motion pictures, from the 1890s through the 1920s, but faded out and went completely out of business by the 1930s. Somebody with no apparent true connection with the original company went into business in the 1990s under that name (long after all of the original company's copyrights and trademarks had lapsed into the public domain), and is making questionable claims at being the legitimate continuer of the original company's tradition, along with some other wacky claims such as saying they have purchased land on the Moon on which they soon will be filming movies.
Of course, Wikipedia is "evil" because it fails to take all of this guy's claims at face value, and persists in having an article about the classic original company (which is legitimately notable in the early history of the movie industry) with only a brief paragraph noting the existence of an unrelated new company of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
Naturally, this guy's claims and whines are getting a favorable reception over on Wikipedia Review, where they see no anti-Wikipedia rant they don't like.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Why is the "new" company even mentioned in the article on American Mutoscope and Biography--as other than a redirect to its own stub (probably notable enough to earn a wittle stubby) ?
"In 2003, Biograph announced that it had acquired title to 1,777 acres on the Moon for use as a filming location, and Thomas R. Bond II stated that he planned to start filming there by 2008.[24]"
The guy's a kook, evidently.
James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com
There are plenty of notable kooks, though.
KP
On 31/03/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Why is the "new" company even mentioned in the article on American Mutoscope and Biography--as other than a redirect to its own stub (probably notable enough to earn a wittle stubby) ?
Good question.
"In 2003, Biograph announced that it had acquired title to 1,777 acres on the Moon for use as a filming location, and Thomas R. Bond II stated that he planned to start filming there by 2008.[24]"
The guy's a kook, evidently.
James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com
There are plenty of notable kooks, though.
This is true, but I don't think I'm one of them :-)
Trawling through the history, I see that they've been threatening legal action since at least November 2005...
Good grief, even if he weren't a kook, his writing is atrocious:
"We also was recently hacked and even embezzlement of funds occurred by hacking that coincide with recent Wikipedia activity against the company"
This guy is planning a trip to the moon?
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
In this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7820
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
From what I can gather, the company of that name was active in the
early days of motion pictures, from the 1890s through the 1920s, but faded out and went completely out of business by the 1930s. Somebody with no apparent true connection with the original company went into business in the 1990s under that name (long after all of the original company's copyrights and trademarks had lapsed into the public domain), and is making questionable claims at being the legitimate continuer of the original company's tradition, along with some other wacky claims such as saying they have purchased land on the Moon on which they soon will be filming movies.
Of course, Wikipedia is "evil" because it fails to take all of this guy's claims at face value, and persists in having an article about the classic original company (which is legitimately notable in the early history of the movie industry) with only a brief paragraph noting the existence of an unrelated new company of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
Naturally, this guy's claims and whines are getting a favorable reception over on Wikipedia Review, where they see no anti-Wikipedia rant they don't like.
On 3/31/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
This guy is planning a trip to the moon?
Maybe we should make a fundraiser to buy him a one-way ticket...
Magnus
How he even thinks to make a profit from a movie shot on the moon is beyond me. Getting there alone would take about as much as the budget of at least two blockbuster films if not more depending on all the new technology he'd need to sustain a film crew out there...
Mgm
On 3/31/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 3/31/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
This guy is planning a trip to the moon?
Maybe we should make a fundraiser to buy him a one-way ticket...
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:46:32 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
How he even thinks to make a profit from a movie shot on the moon is beyond me.
Yeah, even NASA had to fake it on a Hollywood backlot.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/31/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:46:32 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
How he even thinks to make a profit from a movie shot on the moon is
beyond
me.
Yeah, even NASA had to fake it on a Hollywood backlot.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I saw a really good website that discredited that, but of course I forgot the URL. Basically, it said that it's impossible for such a conspiracy to be going on without even one person involved in it telling about it before they died. But I don't want to turn this into a "going to the moon debate". Point is that assuming NASA did go to the moon, it isn't going to be cost-effective for this guy.
Mgm
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:42:54 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, it said that it's impossible for such a conspiracy to be going on without even one person involved in it telling about it before they died.
This is the Achilles' heel of most of the big conspiracy theories, from Roswell to 9/11.
Anybody who considers that a conspiracy involving more than a handful of people will remain leak free when it goes public is delusional.
Of course, they also violate Occam's Razor.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/31/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:42:54 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, it said that it's impossible for such a conspiracy to be going on without even one person involved in it telling about it before they died.
This is the Achilles' heel of most of the big conspiracy theories, from Roswell to 9/11.
Anybody who considers that a conspiracy involving more than a handful of people will remain leak free when it goes public is delusional.
Though there have been a few instances of big things being kept secret for long periods of time on account of various organizational practices. The South African nuclear weapons program, for example, involved hundreds of people, but only a small few really knew what was truly going on with it. One of the reasons the CIA didn't find out about the 1974 Indian nuclear test was because they purposefully used a small number of people to prepare it -- i.e. they cut out almost all of the low-grade technicians and only used people who were deeply invested in the project, forcing top-grade physicists to do the work normally regulated to lesser specialists. During the US project to build the atomic bomb, most of the thousands of factory workers required to create the fissile material had no idea what the ultimate goal of their efforts were -- they just knew to do their job and to not ask questions -- and if they had been told in the end that their work was just to develop some sort of new tank armor they'd probably have believed it.
I'm not defending conspiracy theorists in the slightest; I'm just saying that there are organizational arrangements (chiefly compartmentalization, but others too) which allow for things requiring great numbers of people to be more-or-less in the dark on what they are doing, and there are also ways to reduce the number of people working on a secret project to very low numbers even if they would be traditionally seen as wasteful or impractical. The idea of having big secrets has not been historically implausible, though of course such things always fail Occam's Razor (which is just a heuristic, anyway).
Just musing along... (and not a conspiracy theorist) FF
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:36:28 -0400, Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
This guy is planning a trip to the moon?
Sounds like a shorter trip for him than for the rest of us...
Guy (JzG)
On 3/31/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
In this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7820
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
From what I can gather, the company of that name was active in the early days of motion pictures, from the 1890s through the 1920s, but faded out and went completely out of business by the 1930s. Somebody with no apparent true connection with the original company went into business in the 1990s under that name (long after all of the original company's copyrights and trademarks had lapsed into the public domain), and is making questionable claims at being the legitimate continuer of the original company's tradition, along with some other wacky claims such as saying they have purchased land on the Moon on which they soon will be filming movies.
Of course, Wikipedia is "evil" because it fails to take all of this guy's claims at face value, and persists in having an article about the classic original company (which is legitimately notable in the early history of the movie industry) with only a brief paragraph noting the existence of an unrelated new company of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
Naturally, this guy's claims and whines are getting a favorable reception over on Wikipedia Review, where they see no anti-Wikipedia rant they don't like.
This guy is old news. I handled his complaints last year as an OTRS volunteer. We got a good laugh out of it, especially the bit about him owning filming rights on the Moon, or whatever.
Kelly
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:05:55 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
somebody allegedly associated with The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is threatening to sue Wikipedia over his company being "done wrong".
We deleted this guy's spam links, as I recall.
Guy (JzG)