Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 20:24 UTC
Legal Well, this was rather unexpected. As it turns out, Commodore USA's CEO Barry Altman isn't particularly pleased about the article I wrote earlier today in which I placed a considerable amount of scepticism with regards to Commodore USA and its business (and website). He (not his lawyer) sent us a threatening email demanding we take down the article, post a new correction article, the whole shebang. The entire email - as an image, you'll want the original formatting - after the break. Our reply? We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Thread beginning with comment 439002
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What is your reply Thom?
by Kroc on Wed 1st Sep 2010 20:35 UTC in reply to "What is your reply Thom?"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Following up on rebus’ comment

An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in the case Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply". The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off." In the years following, the magazine would use this case as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"; or, perhaps, "His reply was similar to that given to the plaintiff in Arkell v. Pressdram".[16] As with "tired and emotional" this usage has spread far beyond the magazine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation (linked in the news teaser)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: What is your reply Thom?
by joshv on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 02:07 in reply to "RE: What is your reply Thom?"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"Fuck off"? - impressive. Puts your right up there in the big leagues - just like Ars Technica. Very professional.

Come on, seriously? OS News flung some poo, and your target flung it back. A pox on both your houses.

Grow up - both of you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

Oh, puh-leaze. Thom gave this pathetic "threat" (copied and pasted from Chilling Effects, line breaks and highlights preserved so very well) exactly the response it deserved.

And now that this ploy is exposed, have you noticed their CTO begging everyone to "Take a chill pill" in a later thread? That's an attempt at damage control, one that deserves Eliyahu's eloquent reply.

Commodore USA needs to remember the First Rule of Holes: "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."

Reply Parent Score: 2

atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

This tone trolling is childish.

Reply Parent Score: 1