It’s official – PaperlinX agrees the facts with suX on 99% of all postings.
During his presentation at the EGM, or perhaps when answering a question, Harry Boon referred to a “defamatory blog”.
He also mentioned a “defamatory blog” in the Financial Review full page feature published on Wednesday, March 21, just before the EGM, see here and in The Australian published on Saturday March 24, see here.
The latter referred to the three hour EGM as “distinctly personal” - an understatement. What follows is one example.
By the way, how did Harry Boon get a full page feature article in the Financial Review just two days before the EGM – see here?
I’m presently compiling a full report on the proceedings of the EGM to be published soon.
Let’s be clear, this blog has a mission spelled out in ABOUT US. It’s our second most visited page after Whistle-blowers HERE. Does that tell you something about the success of our mission?
To the best of my knowledge and ability I publish hard facts and personal opinions on this blog. Regular readers know I’ve made this offer consistently - If ever you think I’ve defamed you, tell me in writing and I’ll retract.
I assume that if PaperlinX doesn’t seek a retraction or correction then it must agree with the facts presented, because I know that every word published here is scrutinised.
I never expect Harry Boon to agree with my opinions; however we now know that 48.16% of voters at the EGM agree with me and not him. Very comforting.
Holding differences of opinion is democratic, not defamatory.
Exchange between Boon and Critchley at EGM
At the EGM I asked Boon to withdraw his defamatory comment that suX is defamatory. Along the way, in an exchange with Boon, I stupidly said words to the effect that because he or PaperlinX had never sought a retraction, it must all be true.
Mistake. In the heat of the moment I forgot a minor exchange between suX and PaperlinX back in November, 2011.
Readers should be aware that in Australia barristers cannot be held liable for mistakes made while on their feet in court. At the EGM I paid dearly for this mistake.
Here is the timeline of events and documents relating to the one retraction.
Thursday, 24 Nov
James Orr phoned me to “suggest and request” certain deletions from www.paperlinx-sux.com.
Thursday, 24 Nov
I immediately wrote to him requesting a written suggestion and request, see here.
Friday, 25 Nov
PaperlinX served me by way of email a Concerns Notice which I understand is the terminology for notices pertaining to defamatory material. The attached notice was Confidential and not for publication which I have respected.
Here is the service of Notice and my immediate response.
Friday, 25 Nov
I withdrew the allegedly offensive page titled $20M Gift posted Nov 21, see here.
Monday, 28 Nov
I wrote to PaperlinX seeking clarification as to how best meet its requirements. I only received an acknowledgement of receipt. Here are the exchanges of 28 Nov 2011.
Tuesday, 29 Nov
I again wrote to PaperlinX seeking its advice. See here. I never received a reply.
11 Dec, 2011
The original posting $20M Gift was amended and expanded and posted as Daylight Robbery.
Bear in mind this was early days for suX, just nine days from launch; before PIGS, before Platinum Equity, before Andrew Price, before the massive interim loss, before Loch Lomond Golf Club etc.
There hasn’t been one mention by PaperlinX of defamatory material on suX from 25 November 2011 until the EGM on 23 March, 2012 – four months.
Harry wins the point and successfully humiliated me about my truthfulness in front of the EGM. Of course I was so confused I forgot to mention the obvious facts by way of rebuttal:
- Yes, I agree there was one posting was withdrawn on Nov 25, 2011 at the request of PaperlinX.
- Between the inception of suX and the EGM there have been 101 postings on this blog. Only one has been challenged by PaperlinX.
- Accordingly, I am entitled to rely on the inference that 99% of the time PaperlinX agrees with the postings on suX.