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?