The public has an expectation of honesty from their leading sources of news. Unfounded charactor assasination when discovered should be retracted.

I was falsely accused last week of being a Cybersquatter and "anti-jewish" by a story in the Sydney Morning Herald. A story which was then copied and rewritten by all of the other major tabloids before going international.

I had purchased the domain name http://www.bindiirwin.com and emailed the Irwin's manager John Stainton offering to transfer it over to Terri Irwin for free. John Stainton admitted recieving my letter on September 11 and was very appreciative. Weeks before these stories accused me of trying to profit from the death of Steve Irwin.

http://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=stories&action=display&thread=1160028046

The reporters had been fed false information by a Wikipedian administrator who quoted links to old messages at a closed political forum not even visible to anyone at the message board. If anybody here knows of a political forum which doesn't contain heated controversial topics then please let me know.

Then a reporter named Richard Finnila at the Courier mail followed up one libelous story he'd written about me with another accusing me of trying to profit from Liberal and National politicians domains.

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

If he had bothered to do any research he would have discovered that these domain purchases were also attempts to secure them for their rightful owners. I am in fact a Liberal myself. I am also a party volunteer.

I responded to his story by posting a reply and directing all of the domains in his article to it.

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

Mr Epstein the Director of the Liberal Party for Queensland called me on the phone and confirmed that he and his fellow liberal party colleagues had been given misleading information.

Just how many of the stories in the press are true and how many are completely fabricated I don't know. Should we establish new laws to reign in maverick writers like these?

If a person can be villified for securing a top level celebrity domain and saving the Irwin family a fortune then how can we trust anything the newspapers write?

Wayne,
If what you say is correct,I guess now you know what Pauline Hanson went through. What could not be taken out of context or another spin put on it was simply made up. This put her and ON always on the defensive.

It was corruption and collusion that put Pauline in jail.
Finally she was aquitted of the trumped up charges but at great cost in legal fees. She still has not got back any of the $500,000 she gave back to the Qld. Electoral Commision and remember that they would have sold up her home to get that money. You don't have to go overseas to find injustice.

Wish you luck in getting these matters cleared up.

When Pauline was locked up I grabbed my swag and caught the train down to the prison where protestors were gathering. Not many of us showed up because Pauline had asked people not to. Just in case it upset the judge at her next hearing. I'd missed that news and a few people had decided to go anyway.

Her son came and shook my hand. He'd written a song about the whole affair and had personally performed the lyrics. Another guy had really come prepared. He had a tent, barbq and you name it. The place had been difficult to find so I volunteered to go down the main road with a big placard and direct people.

Mobs of kangaroo's came hopping by our little encampment. Guards came out for a chat. They actually agreed that her arrest was wrong too. It was a very cold night and I'd wished I'd brought along more blankets. My thin canvas swag and aging sleeping bag let the cold right through to my bones.

I actually met Pauline once when I used to work as a security guard alongside customs officers at Brisbane Airport. I picked up her bag out of the X ray machine and handed it to her as she came through the VIP terminal. It was just before an election and she looked scared.

I didn't agree with all of her policies but John howard certainly adopted many of them.

Seems like you might be a stalker of celebrities mate.
Pauline, Bindi, who else have you tried in on with?

(I think) the biggest concern with Hansonism was the gun lobby.

But on the subject of media, i wanted to focus. The trouble with truth, as put by waynesmithy is this. The media is like a big magnifiying glass. The closer you get to it, the more you see. Same goes to if you use media in a practical media sense. For the media and the state, both need desperately to be seen in a good light: so hold that thing at arms length.

Just like in QLD, where Dr Death has been avoided on more than one occassion. It seems both state and media are afright of looking closely at the smudge that is Dr Death. Yet both are their for our supposed benefit. Hmmph, i say. As time goes by, such disasters are being normalised. I cant help but worry that in time both will be completly irrational, and we'll all just have to accept it as a given, because the two will be off freaking over far greater things such as rising sea levels, tides of refugees and so-on.

God bless Australia (by that i mean our living domestic population).

Sounds like you might be a Sydney Morning Herald reporter Rainier. With a talent for making libelous statements like that you should be.

I registered the Bindi domain to stop this happening to it.

http://www.terriirwin.com

That's what happens to celebrity domain names that negligent managers don't purchase. They get bought up by advertising agencies and Cybersquatters. I knew immediately the second I saw that name hadn't been registered yet that somebody had stuffed up. The Media would focus on how Steve had died for about a week. Then they'd focus on his funeral. Then his family. In particular Bindi. These other domains disapeared very shortly after I secured it.

http://www.bindiirwin.org
http://www.bindiirwin.net

An American bought them. Not too great a loss as the dot com is the most sought after and popular domain extension. Have no idea if he will hand them over if asked. By law they are now his.

The Sydney Morning Herald reporters should be sacked over this trash.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/bindi-website-squatter-abhorrent/2006/10/05/1159641438737.html

Atleast the internet literate are on my side.

Internet Polls.

Is Wayne Smith who bought BindiIrwin.Com a Cybersquatter?
http://www.opinion.com.au/5201_Is_Wayne_Smith_who_bought_BindiIrwin%2ECom_a_Cybersq.htm

Perhaps you would like to see what others would have done with it?

What would you have done with BindiIrwin.Com?
http://www.opinion.com.au/5199_What_would_you_have_done_with_BindiIrwin%2ECom%3F.htm

Rather than embroil myself in the particular controversy here, I would like to address the general concept of media honesty on a different matter.

One of the Sydney papers, had an article on 'Muslim Immigration' where it claimed that in the past few years Muslim immig had shown a stead rise in proportion.
The alleged 'fact' to support this contention was primarily as follows:

"Immigration from 'Muslim Dominated' countries such as Malaysia" has increased dramatically.

What they failed to point out, is that most people migrating from Malaysia would be CHINESE who are not Muslims. The reason they are migrating is the limited scope and opportunity in that country for ethnic chinese due to institutional race discrimination in Education and Government employment which are mainly taken by the Muslim Malay's.

I do believe we must monitor all trends which could threaten our social harmony and political stability, especially when it comes to Muslims or Islam, but I prefer it is based on accurate rather than slanted reporting.

I think you've hit upon the central problem. Ignorance. I noticed in my own beat ups that the reporters were incredibly ignorant about how the internet works. One emboldened line in the political domain article taken from Ros Bates clearly demonstrates that neither the candidate in question or the reporter Richard Finnila understand anything about domain name registration.
http://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=stories&action=display&thread=1160443025

"I'm going to have to wait around 12 months now and then try and register it again before he does."

Anyone who writes articles about domain name registrations should atleast know that the buyer has first option on renewing them. The Sydney Morning Herald reporters were equally unknowledgable about how it all works. Yet their article was on page one. That's a very sad reflection on the strandards of the Sydney Morning Herald.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=603051

As this popular discussion forum demonstrates, those with a little understanding of how the internet operates can clearly see its a big beat up. I helped out John Stainton by securing a domain name he should have purchased years ago and all I get for my trouble is a raking from idiot journo's. I hope up and coming celebrities remember to register their domains early in future. After the treatment I got nobody is going to do it for them.

Found out who fed the misleading information to SMH. A disgruntled Wikipedian named Andrew Lau who goes under the username of (Netsnipe). Like many publishers and other websurfers I love "vandalising" Wikipedia as they call it. He did it in revenge apparently.

Hey Waynee poo, got some great deals for ya,

Domain names for sale

lyinglittlerodent.com.au (5 dollars)

celebrityhunter.com.au (9 dollars)

ambulancechaser.com.au (10 dollars)

Those sound great Rainier but I've already purchased a self professed Ambulance Chaser today.

http://www.richardfinnila.com

Richard Finnila
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/author/0,23829,5000519-3102,00.html

What goes around comes around Ricky. I'm going to be keeping that domain forever.

I also purchased http://www.bindiirwin.info about 5 minutes ago. All of the other Bindi and Terri domains have already been bought up now. That's how it works. First come first serve. John didn't heed my warning to buy them up himself and now they are all gone.

Perhaps I'll email him and offer the http://www.bindiirwin.info domain and perhaps I won't. It's my choice. Just like it was my choice to email him weeks ago and offer http://www.bindiirwin.com for free.

If I keep it do you think I'll make page one again? Reporters are such clowns aren't they.

well at least you have a sense of humour lol

So answer me this Ranier.

What would you have done if you discovered http://www.bindiirwin.com was still unregistered and you knew it would soon get gobbled up by Cybersquatters?

Would you have let some American advertising agency buy it up and reap in millions of dollars in revenue per year? All perfectly legally.

I did the Irwin's a favour. I emailed John offering it to Terri weeks ago. Long before this story about nothing hit the headlines. Tabloids don't usually take strories from the net. I could have kept it.

John Stainton still hasn't figured out that celebrity domain names are like hotcakes. If I hadn't purchased it then what do you think would have happened next? http://www.bindiirwin.org and http://www.bindiirwin.net have the lords prayer splattered all over them. It's possible other buyers checked what was available before he did but were only after the dot com domain and left disapointed.

Wayne, the guiding rule for journalists on this is usually if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, then they will print this as evidence of duck-like behaviour.

It might just be that the creature was a talented character actor in disguise who happened to have a bad cold that day. But once the duckish nature of his antics have been presented to the public, they will make up their own mind.

As indeed was the case with the SMH story, none of which you denied at the time, when I specifically asked you to name the aspects of the story that were not factual.

I suspect that you will get fed up with continuing to promote this non-story after a while. What I can predict with absolute certainty is that the public's interest in the Irwins will fade rapidly, except for people with a direct financial interest in their activities.

As much as one has sympathy for anyone losing a husband and a father in any circumstances, the whole Irwin story is rapidly becoming a train-wreck. As a good friend of mine observed... "Bindi? Right on course to become a fourteen year-old crack addict."

I'm horribly afraid she might have something there.

Wayne,

Theres a chicken and egg problem to be solved here.

Did you purchase the domain name before or after Steve Irwin's death?

If you had it sitting around waiting for it to become gold encrusted you deserve every bit of bad publicity you got.

But then again, I'd have to take your word that you bought it after wouldn't I? And even if you did, why wouldn't you have intentions of selling on to an American advertising agency - reaping millions!

Perhaps those journo's simply called your bluff huh?

Do you remember that children's story about the Tar-Baby, Brer Rabbit,and Brer Fox?

A reminder:)

"And then you're always getting into something that's none of your business," says Brer Fox, says he. "Who asked you to come and strike up a conversation with this Tar-Baby? And who stuck you up the way you are? Nobody in the round world. You just jammed yourself into that Tar-Baby without waiting for an invitation," says Brer Fox, says he. "There you are and there you'll stay until I fix up a brushpile and fire it up, "cause I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure," says Brer Fox, says he."

Then Brer Rabbit started talking mighty humble.

Nobody messes with this little black duck, Pericles. I'm less interested in promoting the story than I am in getting a retraction.

A lot of people including John Stainton have made the argument that a persons domain name should belong to them. I don't make the rules. I'm just aware of them.

I actually wholeheartedly agree. Not sure where that leaves the John Smith's of this world though.

Cybersquatters make money from domains. I never have. I made money today lugging rugs at the RNA showgrounds. I do casual work when I find it and need it. I've never made a cent from the internet.

Surfing the net is just a hobby. I vandalise Wikipedia, visit various forums to discuss science stuff and collect internet domains. Fun stuff.

I know a few crack addicts. I don't see Bindi turning into one. She lives in the wrong kind of socioeconomic environment.

Rainier,
There's posts all over the net dated before the first article from smh. One is at this board. The discovery channel got an email from me a few days before. John Stainton got one on September 11. I purchased it adfter his death. Even the article says so. One of the few truthful comments in it.

Pericles, yeah i can see your point. There’s a kind of banal, even insidious, weird, discourse that every adult around Bindi appears to chanting.

I've heard:

'She's a little rock'

"She's a real professional"

I'm watching her on TV right now speaking recited lines about animals etcetera.

The theft of her childhood is being sanctioned by a public who are also willing to be an accomplice to the act of this theft. Patriotic emotions are powerful aphrodisiacs.

It’s as though the Irwin parents bought her into the world for one purpose only. To be the 'human' child star exhibition at the Australian Zoo. How sad is that.

Poor Bindi,taking over from where Niki Webster failed

This just popped up at the top of search engines. The first retraction.

http://www.nbc5i.com/whattheel/10036512/detail.html

I'm currently doing 3 simultaneous email interviews. I hope SMH doesn't wait until everybody else has made a retraction before making theirs.

That could be rather embrassing for them.

All I want is for you to publish the truth SMH. Then all will be forgiven. Give it a try. You might find you like it.

Wayne, I have to say that even if you are an innocent bystander in all this, it would be far better just to let it all blow over than keep fanning the flames.

The "retraction" in "What the El" is as vague on specifics as you have been all along.

I have, just to be sure, re-read the SMH article that appears to be the source of your problems, and once again I am forced to ask, for the sake of absolute clarity, what was it that they wrote that was inaccurate, at the time they wrote it?

They wrote:

"Bindiirwin.com [was] set up by a Queensland man just hours after Steve Irwin's death on September 4"

"a string of politically charged domain names - including f**kisrael.org, philipruddock.com and amandavanstone.com - automatically redirected web surfers to the Bindi Irwin site"

"...a message thread, now closed, contains posts by the site's administrator, "Wayne", discussing "evil pig" Jews and "Zionist scumbags"."

"Wayne deleted or modified some comments critical of the site that were posted this afternoon."

"He posted that the message board containing the anti-Israel comments had been previously closed and could not be accessed by users"

"On other websites, such as Wikipedia and several science and space-based sites, user names linked to a Wayne Smith have been banned for cyber-vandalism and inappropriate comments."

Can you enlighten us which of these statements is inaccurate? No bull, no bluster. Just quote the untruth that they wrote, and set us straight.

Can you do that?

What Pericles said.

C'mon Wayne, all my Jewish mates want to know what you're really about.

http://www.perthnorg.com.au/2006/10/18/bindi_irwin_cybersquatter_not_a_cybersquatter/

I've been getting a lot of emails from reporters. I've been asked to do a Podcast whatever exactly that is. I am not anti-jewish. Anti-zionist yes. But then so are many jews. I don't know what your problem is Ranier but you sound like a Troll to me. I've done nothing to be ashamed of in this affair. The Irwins are on my side. The newspapers know they've stuffed up but are trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug as they so often do when they have egg on their faces. I have proof of my claims and shouldn't even be defending myself. It is up to the Sydney Morning Herald to explain why they published an unresearched groundless pile of garbage assasinating my charactor

oh dear Wayne, it seems you'll soon know that law very well,

Here's a piece of it -

"It is also a crime to use a telecommunications/carriage service in a way ‘that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive’ (section 474.17). This provision, punishable with a maximum of 3 years imprisonment,"

“blood sucking vampire lawyer”

“you filthy slimebags”.

“lying fourth rate hacks”

“your gutter rag”

You seem to be a bit upset Wayne?

Wayne, when you are in over your head, it is usually advisable to stop digging.

Spraying insults around, when you continue to avoid setting the record straight on the original article, doesn't impress anyone.

A sober rebuttal, showing clearly how the article misrepresented the facts, would have been sufficient.

It is now the case that the louder you shout, and the more vitriol you spread around, the less you will be believed.
As far as taking the battle to the press is concerned, I have to tell you that your strategy is not a winning one.

Wayne
There is an old saying. The man I see is the man I be.
When people think bad of you, or good of you its the first thought that comes to their minds is the way they think. Hence the saying - Through my Eyes. Some nasty people still say lindy Chamerland is guilty too. Speaking of Dingos. Dingos are gentle compaired with the media.
For what it is worth I beleive you. I also had a bit to do with Pauline but I didnt go outside the goal. I warned her sister about the lawyer she had at the time. Eventually she listended.
Yes it was cold that evening and I thought about the ones who had turned up.
As for the media well you should not be too surprised.

Its a political animal Wayne you should know that and they will build a story which sells the best. After all a story about a nice bloke who registered a name to make sure somebody else didnt exploit a kid wouldnt make front page now would it.

Mind You it should. I look at the media control and the conflicts of interests all the time.

I remember last year when Australia had its own Cormo express right here in WA and you couldnt get a reporter to run the story Wayne.

Media giants and conflicts of interests right througout that industry so the public never get to hear the real truth.

I am sure this has effected your health as these things do and I just think you should know not everybody has jumped to conclusions.

Its just so hard for some to understand there are some good people in this world.
Remember "the man I see Is the man I be"- the very next nasty post that comes your way.

Good Luck and dont ever stop being the kind person I think you are. Even if Some dont understand it.
To thy own self be true
I am sure Pauline would agree.

Oh this is getting juicy, another 'I nearly bedded Pauline too" story.

You never know, this could turn into a best selling paper back filled with testimonials from 45 -70 year old white Australian men about their close encounters with the she- devil of Australian politics. Anyone else out there who ‘got close’ please feel free to contribute.

Possible book titles:

"My trembling moment with Pauline" Or "Red nearly in my Bed"

LOL

Rainier
What a strange comment. Who said anything about being male?
Tell you what however- you are a good example.
As i said Wayne the man I "see "- Is the man I "be".
Just ask Rainier
Strange really strange and very disrespectful towards Pauline

No Wayne, I didn't tip off the Sydney Morning Herald. I wouldn't have imagined that they think a story about a cybersquatter was worth printing to begin with. Still it was a huge surprise to all of us tracking your spam on Wikipedia when it did appear in the media and got syndicated around the world.

Come on Wayne, what did you expect would happen when you bought the domain to the daughter of a recently-deceased Australian legend? Did you honestly think no one else would have noticed? Your linkspamming has gotten you banned from at least 10 different sites, so how many enemies have you made apart from me?

Personally, I couldn't care less about your cybersquatting, nor could I give a damn about your political leanings -- I AM NOT STALKING YOU, I just track long-term abuse cases on Wikipedia and as soon as you stop spamming it, we'll stop tracking your activities. I have enough spammers and vandals to take care of Wikipedia to have the time to "stalk" you and run a smear campaign.

You started spamming Wikipedia articles to improve your search rankings and increase online advertising revenues as you admit at the bottom of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croclover

It's kind of ironic that spamming Wikipedia was a two edge sword when we started documenting all the domains you were using to spam us and the accounts we had to ban to stop you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily

These pages can disappear if you want them to. All you have to do is leave Wikipedia alone.

See what I mean about "stop digging" Wayne?

I had no idea that you have such a reputation around the internet traps - how exciting!

From the tone of the links Netsnipe provided though, it would appear that your activities there are not generally liked.

And although I know little of the mechanics of spamming, the gist seems to be that in a forum far distant from the Irwins, you have somehow gained a reputation for being a bit of a cybervillain.

Do I read that correctly?

Please note that I am not personally suggesting that you are a cybervillain, in much the same way as the SMH did not actually accuse you of anything. They simply reported on the context of the bindiirwin web site that you took upon yourself, and allowed others to draw conclusions.

You began this thread with some belligerence:

>>The public has an expectation of honesty from their leading sources of news. Unfounded charactor assasination when discovered should be retracted.<<

You have yet to show any evidence of "charactor assasination" [sic], and are many light years from indicating that it might be "unfounded".

I have to say that given the broader context we are now beginning to see, you would do well to pack up your tent right now.

There's brave, there's brave but foolhardy, and there's stupid. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror and decide.

Apart from anything else, it means that your posts on other topics will be tainted by the reputation for sound or unsound judgement that you have gained here.

Yes, I think Wayne is well and truly busted. However, on reading those links I suspect that he's just going to keep on digging - until it all falls in on top of him.

I don't think Wayne is visiting this board any longer. I guess you guys win. The pressure must have gotten to him. From what I hear John Stainton isn't much impressed with the Press either. He has taken a one year holiday and pushed the Bindi show back out of disgust at call back radio and newspaper stories of late. I can't say I blame him. Media reporters are vultures aren't they.

http://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=stories&thread=1161647956&page=1

"You started spamming Wikipedia articles to improve your search rankings and increase online advertising revenues as you admit at the bottom of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Croclover"

I don't make any advertising revenue. I don't even own any websites. I post my links at Wikipedia for fun. Just to see how long it takes for you to notice. I used to post legitimate forum links but after being banned and called a "Vandal" decided to get revenge by spamming your site. Hardly a criminal act. In fact it even says at my MySpace page that one of my hobbies is 'Vandalising Wikipedia'. I've never hidden the fact. Everybody does it.

http://www.myspace.com/universedaily

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily

These pages can disappear if you want them to. All you have to do is leave Wikipedia alone. "

I honestly couldn't care less. Nobody takes Wikipedia seriously. It's unreliable and run by idiots.