I asked "which of the statements made about you and about the site by the SMH are untrue?"

You replied:

>>That the Irwins were devastated. That I intended to profit from the domain. That I'm anti-jewish. Stuff like that. I emailed the Irwins asking for details on where to transfer the domain to weeks ago.<<

1. There was nothing in the article that described how the Irwins felt, let alone that they were "devastated".

2. There was nothing in the article that accused you of trying to profit from the domain.

3. Similarly, there is nothing in the article that states that you are anti-Jewish.

It seemed to me that the article went out of its way not to draw inferences, but allow people to do this for themselves. Your response suggests that they have only presented the facts, in which case we can all come to our own conclusions as to what they collectively mean.

Did you read pages 2 and 3?

There were 33 articles listed online after the story went from National to International. Sorry if I've mixed up some of the claims. Every one was a rewrite of the original smh piece with a few extra embellishments.

Here's a small sample of them.

Irwin Family Fume Over Unofficial Website
http://www.kget.com/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=0EA24BDE-6ACB-473D-850A-B64F5C536247
KGET TV 17

Anger Erupts Over Fake Bindi Irwin Website
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=23224
Entertainment Wise

Man Registers Web Site With Bindi Irwin's Name, Links To Anti-Israel Material
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005095349
All Headline News

Bindi Irwin website squatter 'abhorrent'
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3820271a12,00.html
Stuff New Zealand

I was phoned by a Producer from 'A Current Affair' who brought a film crew out and did a story on me. This ridiculous beat up of nothing was just dying away in the press when a Richard Finnila from the Courier Mail decided to add another slant to it yesterday.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20551434-3102,00.html

I've redirected all the political links to this thread which is a reply.

http://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=stories&action=display&thread=1160443025

I don't think I'll ever believe anything I read out of a newspaper ever again.

Yes, I read the entire article, which is why I am able to state categorically that you are absolutely wrong when you accused them of saying "[t]hat the Irwins were devastated. That I intended to profit from the domain. That I'm anti-jewish. Stuff like that."

He doth protest too much, methinks.

This story about nothing has been copied and rewritten to death by unprofessional lowlife hacks. Sorry if I quoted the wrong paper but its been in virtually all of them.

"The Irwin family is reportedly devastated..."
Courier Mail
Page 3
October 6
by Richard Finnila

Go and take a look at http://www.terriirwin.com and you will see what happens to celebrity domain names that are left idle. I don't own it and neither does Terri. I have saved the Irwins a fortune by securing the http://www.bindiirwin.com and freely handing it over. I did this under no pressure and would have been perfectly within my rights to keep it and get fat on advertising revenue. The last line of that stupid SMH article which broke the story actually contradicts itself by stating that John Stainton acknowledged getting an email from me on September offering the domain to Terri for free.

I have never made a cent from the internet in my entire life. So much for innocent until proven guilty. The press can make up any story they like and defame somebody without any repercussions.

That should read that John Stainton acknowledged getting my email offering the domain to Terri for free on september 11. Weeks before this trashy beat up was written. Sorry about that.

To be hated for something you are innocent of is no fun and the press now knows they have made a mistake but refuse to apologise. The editors of these newspapers are cowardly scum and frankly unaustralian for not retracting their libelous bile about me.