What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
86 Comments
- Bluebonic, on 02/09/2008, -0/+53I don't think Google should be responsible in any way for removing links from search results, that's just plain silly.
- sfacets, on 02/09/2008, -0/+45Scummy business men? Real estate? Never!
- ACrazyGerman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+36Thats Like suing Digg for your Comment being buried and laughed at.
- ryanward, on 02/09/2008, -0/+31Someone is looking for a payday here...
- TheSkunkMonkey, on 02/09/2008, -0/+27Well, let's see if we can't add to that...
http://www.stupidprize.com/?name=Mark+Forytarz
http://www.stupidprize.com/?name=Paul+Castran
Enjoy your new Google listings! - DennisPease, on 02/09/2008, -0/+23I guess that is a reminder that your personal actions in life could embarrass you on the internet, possibly for a very long time.
- dave3, on 02/09/2008, -0/+21i guess if you're willing to bully a mentally-challenged guy into selling his house for some extra bucks you're probably always sitting around thinking of other ridiculous ways to make a buck
- edebolt, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10I guess they should also sue Firefox, Cisco and Intel for making it all possible.
- jmpeagle, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8doesn't this kind of prove the point of the negative articles about them?
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8PH:03 9827 1177
0407 766 308
FAX:
03 9827 3388
EMAIL: mforytarz@castrangilbert.com.au
Please spam him. :)
That is what the Libs are like. For ever 1 decent human there are 70 flies in that party, John Howard was a 2 faced snake. And now the country is suffering because of him...The LIberal Party is full of Silver tail Lawyers and no imagination until it goes to court. - johnuster, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8It would seem that you have no idea what Australia has become or what it is becoming all you have done is prove your own arrogance and lack of knowledge. Considering 1000's of people are migrating here every week (including Americans). I think that speaks volumes for the country. However lets leave to politics out of it cause they are both messed up.
- INDOAZZ, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8I think Google can afford the best LAWYERS.
- arapro, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7I agree ...
and I agree with the search results, sadly here in OZ unReal Estate agents (at least here!) are the scum of the earth ! - Mytzylplyx, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7isnt this bringing MORE negative attention their way?
- zekt, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Okay, a few facts,
In Australia there is a law called defamation. Where if you go out and say 'Mr X is a corrupt bussinessman', and then you distribute that statement far and wide. If you cannot prove that Mr X is a corrupt businessman in court, then you are in a load of trouble because you're likely to get sued for it. Similiarly, if you publicly said that your Ex girlfriend was a slut, and she could prove otherwise - you could find yourself in court. Now what you have to prove is that there is a probable monetary disadvantage caused by that allegation.
So, the next thing is that the people who publish that content are also liable. Now the stupid thing is that these guys are trying to sue google for re-publishing content via their search service. This has been tried and the search engine provider has been found not to be a publisher, in as much as a newspaper shop is not a prepatrator of defamation when it is in a newspaper they have sold. I expect that the intention to sue Google was done on inadequeate legal advice - as as a result I expect that the litigators will be credited any legal expenses based on this poor advice.
Now to the case itself. Without revealing too much, I imagine that if the people being sued were to gather a collection of people from the ski resort town of Dinner Plain, and the sub-alpine areas of Cobungra and Harrietville, they may very well have better information than I have. We have had dealings with one of the employees of Castran, and in fact we are still friends with them. That, of course, says nothing for the business other than there does not seem to be a culture of poor behaviour within the entire business. Anything else I have heard is, as they say in the courts over here, 'hearsay' and not admissible as evidence in court.
I hope the publishers of the article have their information correct - purely for their own sakes. I doubt findings either way, nor the article itself will hurt the litigant's business, the markets he deals with have been the stomping ground for years. In addition, people over here expect some level of questionable practise within the real estate industry. As a mate of mine said, the only difference between selling cars and real estate is that 1) it's 10x the value 2) they don't break down and have no warranty 3) the owners get to polish them every day rather than you.
Hope that shines a little light on things for you. - BigBallistix, on 02/09/2008, -2/+7I'm Aussie and even I think they're daft. I think blacks have more grounds for lawsuits pertaining to the KKK, don't you? Get real. There's slander and vilification laws but seriously; they're a completely unbiased party.
- Varz, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Yes well you fit the generalization of the 'stupid American' quite well too.
- dturnbull, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5What douchebags. Lets all sue them for being douchebags.
- BigBallistix, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6I thought we managed to steal all documentation about that - damn.
- NeoRicen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Way to prove their point.
- CaviMike, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5It's not Googles fault that you conned a mentally disabled man. Scumbag.
- redgsr, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Google is a search engine, it's job is to search and report new content. Just like some said this will definitely bring more exposure to the agent which I assume is his main goal.
- stklaw, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4I think Google can afford ALL LAWYERS.
- mitchargon, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4This is absolute insanity.
- pingudownunder, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4fully agree. What a crock, and these two are a pair of jokers trying to get some $$$ out of google.They should sue the source of the deformation - not shooting the (albeit rich) messenger.
- PTrick, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Everyone in biz should understand a simple concept: Don't shoot the messenger.
That includes the RIAA, MPAA, and all the others. Including these two losers. - Plezops, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4yes... and this is something that I have never understood about people trying to get stuff removed off the web. Try to do it privately instead of publicly and getting even more attention than you had ever had before.
Guess they are just being greedy, imagine that... - mastabaker, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4Crazy *****
- adooga, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3***** these idiots. They need to get this sorted out with the site that has the articles - what's it got to do with google? If they can't get their heads around this they should have their computers confiscated and given to charity because they're too stupid to be on the interwebs anyway.
STOP CLOGGING OUR TUBES YOU ***** MORONS! - mitch37, on 02/09/2008, -2/+5Please, gtfo
- vilegit, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Meh, in my experience real estate agents ARE scum anyway. Especially the ones in Sydney
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3First of all, I can't believe how many people got pulled into that lil' trolling attempt (or lame joke?). So, I'm gonna be one of those guys pulled in.
I spend a lot of time in Australia on business. It reminds me of how America used to be. You know, free and capitalistic. Sydney is a beautiful city and has a lot going for it. Melbourne is quite nice and feels like a much smaller city (which is a good thing). Australia is a great country and full of promise....
You want to know the really sad thing? I've thought of moving down here if my country keeps on sliding down the poop shoot of oblivion. Oh, and if Hillary is elected President, I'm moving down here... - koicho, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Here is the thing... This will generate a LOT of articles containing their names.
Which in turn will make it even harder to ever remove it from the Internet.
Google has been sued many times and unless there is a copyright infringement filed under DMCA they will not budge and they shouldn't. - heystoopid, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Ah but you forget in both world wars boys from Oz saved English Bacon all too often , whilst supplying them with all the bread and butter they could eat too !
- ElGstr, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2Why Don’t Realtors Support A Real Estate Degree For Realtors?
http://digg.com/business_finance/Why_Don_t_Realtor ... - neocognitism, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2This kind of liability on the part of search engines was explored before google was even around. As expected, there is none. These chodes will lose.
- absentmindedjwc, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2if they were to sue anyone... it would be indymedia.org... they dont have any case against google, as they just list the pages by rank... but IANAL
- masterc, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Did you make sure to put on your tinfoil hat today?
- anon9002, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Well, The Age has already picked up on it. Also they refused to sue the guy that made the orginal statements as I guess they are worried what will come out. Seems suing Google is an attempt at damage control, not working too well.
Here's the Age article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/so-sue-me-t ... - smackhero, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Google is a search engine. that is their main public service. their main _source of revenue_ is advertising, which is how they provide all their online services for free. their primary business model is based on providing free online services to generate visitor traffic, which they in turn use advertising to monetize. there is nothing wrong with that, and in fact they are one of the few companies that place the user before immediate profits. this is how they have generated so much public support, customer loyalty, and a highly respected brand.
a simple look at Google's operating history shows that they are far more than simply an advertising agency. if they only cared about short-term advertising revenue, they wouldn't have created the Google Print Initiative/Google Print Library(formerly Google Book Search), in a partnership with Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, University of California and other universities, and the New York Public Library, to digitize millions of written works and make them freely available online--a philanthropic effort of epic proportions which has been hailed by librarians around the world for its potential to offer unprecedented access to what may become the largest online corpus of human knowledge.
if they were only an advertising company, they would not have created innovative software such as Google Earth, Picasa, Android, Google Web Toolkit, OpenSocial, etc. Google has consistently supported open source development with the release of FOSS products, development toolkits & platforms, APIs, collaboration tools, and other sites/online resources for developers, as well as creating the Google Summer of Code initiative which has further spurred open source development and encourages/rewards young developers to get involved with open source development.
Google's PR strategy is basically to be an ethical and philanthropic company. that is what motivated them to establish a charity arm, Google.org, to create awareness about climate change, global public health, and global poverty. and when subpoenaed along with MSN, Yahoo!, and AOL, Google was the only internet search company to refuse the Department of Justice's request for search data. clearly Google has a strong sense of corporate citizenship and has consistently used their power and resources to better society. this is also evident in their recent lobbying to create an open wireless spectrum that would free the airwaves from the innovation stifling monopoly that the telecoms have over our cellular networks. - tayf, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Google's legal team is like the United States Air Force - not to be ***** with. Good luck douche bag real estate agents from my country.
And on that note... why is it ONLY real estate professionals like to put their douche bag faces on their letterheads and even email signatures? - JustAverageJoe, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2I think it's justifiable homicide to just kill all these mortgage fraudsters.
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE - That which is committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it.
It is justifiable when the party kills in lawful self-defense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, WHILE TRYING TO PREVENT A SERIOUS CRIME, and in the line of duty. Justifiable homicide can also be committed to protect someone else, particularly one's family members or sometimes IN DEFENSE OF A RESIDENCE.
Justifiable Homicide? You Decide, http://www.babelation.com/?q=node/1448
And I add for the safety and well-being of their clients, customers and community!
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3448
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3421
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3404
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3377
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3351
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3300 - lcarsdeveloper, on 02/09/2008, -0/+21) Get their email address
2) Send them a junk email
3) Go back to step 2 and repeat - anon9002, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1You are mixing something else* with Anon, I think you might not really understand what you said. There are some of us who are just against those who will use ridiculous law suits to prevent free speech on the Internet. That's all. If it's Scifags or Real Estate agents who con retarded people.
* Rules 1 & 2 invoked. - Ashuleh, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1too easy...lol
- Ashuleh, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1What?
- Rule34, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1The source of the article is asking to be sued! Yet they won't do it...... Likely as the allegations are true.
The Age (major Aussie news paper) has an article called "So sue me" about this:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/so-sue-me-t ... - fkr3, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1200,000 extra bucks.... I'd break a knee for it.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is