Comments on: Failed Hoax

By: erik

erik — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:40:14 +0000

At the time, it seemed like there was a “win” hidden in there between the two losses. Two “win” scenarios, actually:

“And more about the bombs in Iraq at 11. In strange internet news today, a blogger by the name of Erik Rasmussen initiated a rumor, clearly marked as false, that spread around the internet and was reported by Reuters and the BBC as fact.”
Four other bloggers write about it, linking to me. 16 bloggers write about it linking to the other four. Etc. etc. until no one remembers where the original story came from, and I have something to brag about to my grandkids.

But yes, pretty dumb in all.

By: Uncle Steve

Uncle Steve — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:24:53 +0000

Wasn’t that rather a ‘lose-lose’ proposition there Nephew?

Either you lose: your libelous statements are ignored in disregard.

Or, you lose: your libelous statements are heeded and they damage others and you become liable.

But then again, you’re too hard to touch over there in the Old Country, aren’t you?

By: erik

erik — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:20:49 +0000

Darn. I forgot to raise that point in my blog entry. Surely, if my hoax had actually generated some publicity (c’mon, “Ted Thomas, the Trademark Tycooon”???) and the stock price was actually affected, I would be liable. Surely, the SEC would prosecute me for slander or something, despite the fact that AAPL is the only stock I own (bought at 49, baby!). That was the most interesting idea that occurred to me throughout the whole thing.

At least the “ipHone == traceroute” was pretty geekilicious.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:51:54 +0000

You still might get a rise out of Cisco, like maybe a suit.