BREAKING...BURIED...NEWS

OBAMA: SO HELP YOU GOD?

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:32:00 +0000

As claims that President-elect Barack Obama swore a Godless oath in a (later) private ceremony at the White House are strongly denied, TheBigRetort asks, did 'they' collude in order to separate the Church from the States?

The official swearing in ceremony of the 44th President of the United States of America commenced later than usual, causing us to wonder if this may have been due to a 'problem with the Oath'.

The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1 states, "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January... and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

But this did not happen...

Mr Obama eventually appeared (late) taking the Oath of office using Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural Bible, and as Chief Justice John G Roberts recited the Oath, this is what happened...

Roberts' stated, "that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully" instead of "that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States".

Obama began to recite the Oath, then, sensing Roberts had got is wrong, paused. At which point Chief Justice Roberts attempted to correct his own mistake.

The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Instead, Obama the wordsmith, continued with the mistakes that Roberts' had made... by misplacing the word "faithfully" at the end of the oath

So did this mean, that, following the swearing-in debacle, the United States of America did not have a faithful President in the eyes of God? Some seem to think so...

Chief Justice Roberts answered that question when he addressed Obama by the title of "Senator". Clearly, in his eyes, the seal of approval on a presidential 'nominee' must take place by the swearing of the oath prior to acceptance of that noble and esteemed Office.

The issue of suspension of the executive power is also enshrined in legalese. In 1916, the State department determined that "there may be a slight interval when the executive power is suspended."

Later several constitutional lawyers insisted that Obama should retake the oath... technically, he was not really President. In fact,'President' Obama did not have the constitutional power to perform any executive function 'until the oath of office was taken'.

The finding was based on a 1821 ruling. The Constitution only provides that the President shall take the oath it prescribes 'before he enters on the execution of the office'.

In the past there was an interval between the midnight of the 3rd of March, when the presidential term then started, and the noon of the 4th, when the oath of office was taken, an interval of twelve hours in which the executive power could not be exercised.

Fortunately the law is silent on the exact time that the oath should be taken, leaving it "at the discretion of the high officer", who could decide to take the oath on the first hour of his term in an emergency, or could defer the taking of the oath until the next day, if more convenient. Neither timing would in fact be deemed improper. Obama retook the oath the next day, at 7:35 p.m. on January 21 in the Map Room of the White House in a private ceremony

Again administered by Chief Justice Roberts, the ceremony was attended by a few close aides - without reporters present, and without the First Lady. More poignantly, without a Bible.

In other words the new President will serve in his office but not be under the ever-watchful eyes of God.

The Road to Damascus is a convenient route. Paul who was Saul was not the only leader to recognise the political advancement in taking it. In fact, the most telling information about Obama's presidency versus the "faiths" comes from an interview in which he then stated: "I am a big believer in the separation of church and state."

And what of that curious 'question'?

"So help you God?" the Chief Justice asked. But shouldn't it have been 'So help me God"?

By inviting the President-elect to display his faith and humanity with a question mark and a flutter this affirmed - in the eyes of America at least - that this was the man for the job. (The religious codicil is not required by law.)Obama responded he second time like the first: "So help me God."

But this time his hand was not on any Bible...?

[Pictured. The man who Appointed, Roberts and who told him what to say on the day. Note. Chief Justice Roberts suffered a seizure on July 2007 and took a fall, but 'there was no obvious physiological cause'. He also suffered a similar seizure in 1993, but as he had "fully recovered from the (second) incident," a neurological evaluation had "revealed no cause for concern."]

Base rate slashed to 2% record low

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:25:00 +0000

At noon today, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England slashed the Bank’s base rate by a full percentage point to 2%, matching the lowest level in its 314-year history, a low not seen since 1951. In fact, the base rate has never gone below 2% since it was founded in 1694.
[thebaserate.com and the-rate.com are for sale]

Immortality: secret uncorked

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:21:00 +0000

The secret to living a longer life, or just a load of plonk? TheBigRetort pulls the cork...

Scientists claim that sirtuins, proteins, become increasingly important as people age. It is these proteins that ensure which genes should be “off” - and thereby remain silent as the ageing process continues.

Paradoxically it is these same proteins that are believed to repair DNA damage as we age. The critical protein controls which genes are off and on as well as overseeing DNA repair - and there’s the rub. As we age, chromosomes get damaged and the SIR1 proteins are finally overwhelmed. It is this activity that leads to the process of aging, not time itself which moves on inexorably, unconcerned by birthdays and mankind his or herself.

But can the aging process itself be slowed?

Scientists are beginning to suspect so; mice with more SIRT1 proteins have the improved ability to repair their DNA and prevent the unwanted changes in genes.

Resveratrol extended the lifespan in mice by 24 to 46 percent.

Remarkably previous studies have shown that Resveratrol, a chemical found primarily in red wine, helps activate the SIRT1 protein. The chemical reduces the degenerative diseases associated with the aging process (such as Alzheimer’s), and certain cancers could also be treated.

Unfortunately researchers claim that it is too early for people to start taking Resveratrol, but a glass of red wine at dinner is recommended. The question is, will we get old drinking it?

Domain Extention Notification Company Investigated

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:26:00 +0000

A company that sends out domain extension registration requests prompting users to register a domain that they already own, but with a different extension (.us, .org, .biz, etc), is revealed by TheBigRetort as a scam.

The company styling itself "DNNP" request $75 for 1 year registration. However, the notifications, which appear as if they come from a registrar, are in fact culled from the WhoIs database - and is spam.

Not all domain registrants will be aware that it costs less than $10 dollars to register a domain name – for two years, rather than the one year offered by this $75 per domain a year scam. Many will have been ripped off.

848 N. Rainbow Blvd. #2333 Las Vegas, NV 89107, United States of America.

We can reveal that the company, which is based at the above address, appears to be sited in Las Vegas, but curiously has a New York City fax number -1 (718) 865-9120 - for payments and contact details.

DNNP employs legalese jargon in order to assist it in what appears to be an online scam. It reads, in accordance with the United States Legal Code ... "

A BigRetort... Online users have complained that once contacted there is no way to unsubscribe from the notifications, which are seen by those targeted as ‘unadulterated spam’. ‘Yeah, baby! Stick a fork in it and eat it up,’ one savvy poster wrote.

TheBigRetort can reveal that the Las Vegas address is in fact a mail forwarding address similar to MailBoxes, etc, and for $10 a month Mail Link is forwarding Domain Extension Scam mail. We sent the following response for an invitation to register THEBIGRETORT.US and THERETORT.US extensions:

“Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We could consider any person(s) acquiring the style 'thebigretort', in whatever form, as a dilution of our Trademark, Copyright, and also possibly a fraud and deception which would leave such a person open to criminal prosecution. We would also defend our brand vigorously in the UK and US courts. Please note, any third party involved in the sale or registration of such a style would be jointly and severely liable and damages would be sought. In addition, a claim of extortion under various criminal codes and jurisdictions may apply.”

Unfortunately our email to deenp8_2334@operamail.com‘ was returned under a delivery ‘failure notice’.

But don't fall for it, give 'em the finger, press delete.

[Note. The full header details of the email can be viewed below. The term ‘xxx‘ has been introduced by us to avoid further Spam.]

Domain Notification: This is your Final Notice of Domain Listing - THEBIGRETORT.US
Tuesday, 25 November, 2008 4:31 AM
From Domain Extension Notification Tue Nov 25 04:31:36 2008
Return-Path:

deenp8_2334@operamail.com

Authentication-Results:

mta121.mail.ird.yahoo.com from=operamail.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received:

from 205.234.161.212 (EHLO host.31y.com) (205.234.161.212) by mta121.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:31:44 +0000

Received:

from nobody by host.31y.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L4paK-000105-4f for xxx. UK; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:31:36 -0500

To:

Xxx

Subject:

Domain Notification: xxx This is your Final Notice of Domain Listing - THEBIGRETORT.US
From:

Domain Extension Notification
Add sender to Contacts
MIME-Version:

1.0
Content-Type:

text/html;
Priority:

High
Importance:

High
Precedence:

JSHA
Message-Id:

Date:

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:31:36 -0500
Content-Length:

20271

AMERICA: VOTE FOR THE COON

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:20:00 +0000

With little more than two days to go before the newly elected leader of the free world is chosen some Americans are STILL undecided about where the country is headed: to the past or to the future?

'I don't know Obama,' comes the lame riposte that some Americans offer when asked who they are going to choose.

A response that seems not only forked of tongue but 'color' coded too.

Indeed, many citizens of the free world, and those of the not so free, may wonder how anyone living in a country armed with a TV set, newspaper, or laptop, could not know Barack Obama. He's the black guy in the corner after all.

But, whilst we are at it, did America really know Kennedy? Did that same America know Nixon? Clinton? In fact, the skeletons in the White House closet have been covered in the palest skin and not knowing for some means not knowing the coon. [Unless he's serving at the dining room table.]

Mr President don't be fooled... the undecided always knew who they were going to vote for. They just didn't want you to know in case you won.

The Large Hadron Collider: Is it safe?

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:50:00 +0000

A controversial experiment is planned to take place tomorrow that may signal THE END of the Earth. But could experiments like the controversial Large Hadron Collider (LHC) already have taken place? TheBigRetort investigates...and discovers that someone may have got the 'maths' wrong.

The LHC Safety Study Group studied the safety of the forthcoming experiment in 2003. It concluded that the planned experiments—there are a number of them--presented no danger.

The group focused on two phenomena, namely the possible production of microscopic black holes, the sort that suck you in and blow you out and create additional dimensions of space, which way is up?- and also postulated other exotic phenomena - the possible production of ‘strangelets', hypothetical pieces of matter. The LHC will reproduce, in the laboratory and under controlled conditions, collisions at centre-of-mass energies less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays that have been bombarding the Earth for billions of years.

The ‘stability’ of these astronomical bodies indicates that such collisions cannot be dangerous.

The study also considered other hypothetical objects, vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles, and found ‘no associated risks’. Indeed, if anything like a microscopic black hole is produced at the LHC then it is expected to decay before it reaches the detector walls.

In the case of strangelets, their production in heavy-ion collisions will also present no danger.

In fact the LHC experiment is nothing new as far as nature is itself concerned. The energy created inside the accelerator is still far below those created in the Universe.

High-energy cosmic rays have bombarded the earth since its creation.

The LHC accelerator is designed to collide pairs of protons and pairs of lead nuclei. But their combined energies will still be far below those of the highest-energy cosmic-ray collisions that are observed regularly on Earth.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter-rotating beams of protons or heavy ions. When the LHC attains its design collision rate, it will produce about a billion proton-proton collisions per second in each of the major detectors. It will produce the equivalent of 116 days of collisions. So if the experiment where to run in this time frame, and they have got their sums wrong, life as we know it could all be over - in four months.

Fortunately nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already – and the planet still exists.

It has also conducted the same experiment on the Sun about one billion times – and the Sun still exists. Moreover, our Milky Way galaxy contains countless stars with sizes similar to our Sun, and there are countless similar galaxies in the visible Universe. Cosmic rays have been hitting all these stars at rates similar to collisions with our own Sun. This means that Nature has already completed what the LHC sets out to do tomorrow - only more cheaply. But there is one slight fly in the ointment that the safety experts seemed to have missed, and it's cosmic. i

What we see of our solar system and the Milky Way Galaxy, plus the galaxies beyond is already history.In other words, if Nature,or some 'thing' else, has created a similar experiment, then we may not yet see the catastrophic results painted on to the backdrop of our night skies. In fact,the nearest star system at Alpha Centauri lies some 4. 2 light years away. In other words, if a black hole sucked it up yesterday we would not witness its disappearance until after the 2012 Olympics. A sobering thought.

LONDON PUB GRUB AT ITS BEST

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:55:00 +0000

Sunday is a special day in the calendar because it's usually spent in pursuit of traditional good pub grub. So is another London eatery going to be added to TheBigRetort list of the best 'roast outs'?

The Dartmouth Arms (pictured above), with its convivial surroundings seemed on the face of it like another great choice in an ever-expanding portfolio.

The pub had a welcoming front-of-house staff.

It was a sunny and pleasant day with light streaming through a central skylight onto what were quite relaxing surroundings. Perfect for a roast out.

But should that empty dining room have given a bit of a clue that all was not well?

Apparently the Dartmouth gets busier at 2pm. (Or so the waitress claimed, it was still nearly empty an hour later.)

The wine, an Argentinian malbec, was worth every penny. The gravy and lamb delicious. The problem: a very large (precooked) Yorkshire pudding and two gigantic potatoes.

The Dartmouth's problems lay with its vegetables. Whilst the lamb, which was delicious, had been prepared with some thought, little or none seemed to have gone into the accompanying veg. In fact the chef was having a bit of a laugh.

Extraordinarily bland, the potatoes (rock hard in places), were proof that life exists on Mars... if only you can dig through the damned quick-roasted permafrost.

The parsnips tasted like an alien life form that had lived through a billion-year drought, a strange rubbery undercooked before and after 'yuck'. 'Cook me! Cook me! For God's sake cook me!'

Although the potatoes may have commenced 'life' on Mars the parsnips had obviously been grown on planet Earth... on a Panamanian rubber plantation.

The greens? Perhaps someone at the Dartmouth had forgotten to pay the gas bill.

Waitress: 'Did you enjoy your meal?'

Me (dumbfounded): 'No.'

Waitress: 'Oh... why not?'

Me: 'Because it was bloody dreadful.'

The waitress took the criticism on board and didn't charge for the meals. So, to be fair, these are points out of ten in the Sunday Roast Challenge: 2

The Dartmouth Arms
7, Dartmouth Rd
London
SE23 3HN
Tel: 020 8488 3117
email: info@thedartmoutharms.com

Michael's Ashes: The Response

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:50:00 +0000

Recently we delivered a startling account of the major failings of Eastbourne District General Hospital and its 'aftercare' treatment... of a dead man. Michael Morgan, 51, died in December last and was swiftly cremated on the instruction of hospital officials at 'EDGH': but without the family's knowledge. Following which, they asked for the ashes. Not much to ask given the circumstances one might think, however... it was a request that met with silence. Now, finally, the family has received a response, and it looks as if someone may have removed one of the branches of its family tree. An exclusive from TheBigRetort

In "Michael's Ashes" we highlighted the failings of East Sussex NHS Trust and its 'dead patient aftercare'... which was found to be a bit wanting.

When Michael Morgan died and his family discovered the death and cremation (nearly three months later and only via a chance encounter) Kim Hodgson, chief executive of East Sussex Trust, immediately went into emergency mode. She 'disowned' the family from the former patient claiming that it was not entitled to any further information about his treatment.

Kim Hodgson came to the job as chief executive amidst some controversy. We also saw huge parallels between the treatment of Michael's grieving family at the hands of seemingly uncaring bureaucrats to Ms Hodgson's own loss some time back of a pet dog called Blue.

The dog was stolen and (also) held to ransom and never returned. (We do not want to see that happen with Michael... Or his ashes at least.)

Various newspapers picked up on the piece which not only presented the family's plight but shone a light on East Sussex Trust itself. Following a series of catastrophic and sloppy blunders it failed to demonstrate its attempts to inform Michael's family of his death and later cremation.

Ms Hodgson is also responsible for the overall performance of the executive functions at East Sussex NHS Trust. The 'Accountable Officer', it is her job is to ensure that the Trust discharges its obligations such as patient care and aftercare -or so one might hope.

Instead, Ms Hodgson, presumably advised by expensive lawyers - at a considerable cost to the NHS - has previously ignored repeated requests by the family to hand over the ashes. So why the Dibben statement now?

Could it be the Healthcare Commission investigation? Or MP Joan Ruddock who has also taken an interest? Or the publicity? Whatever the reason, and the plot thickens day by day, if Michael's family had hoped to get a sympathetic ear - along with the answers in this sordid tale - it has now been quashed with Irene Dibben's response.

But Dibben's inability to follow her remit through 'effective communication' and also to 'appraise' her chief executive's actions should be noted.

In what must rank as a great understatement and salt-rubbing of wounds statement, Dibben wrote in her letter that she was aware that the response may cause the family 'further distress'.

Hello all brain cells! If it was a comedy they would be rolling in the aisles. But it's not, it's a tragedy.

So, cover up or cock up? You choose.

Coming soon in TheBigRetort.... We 'Deep Clean' East Sussex NHS Trust.

Michael's Ashes: Censored

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:51:00 +0000

An article recently published in TheBigRetort, highlighting the case of a family that has been attempting to get a hospital to release their loved one's ashes, has disappeared from world-wide-web search engines. The only one to do so in our buried news series.

The article, Michael's Ashes: Money To burn, created a bit of a stir.

Michael Morgan, 51, died at Eastbourne DGH. However, as highlighted in the article, Mr Morgan's family in Liverpool was neither informed of the death or the subsequent cremation. Three newspapers carried the story.

East Sussex NHS Trust now refuses, through its CEO Kim Hodgson, to release the ashes to the family.

As reported in the exclusive, Joan Ruddock, MP for Lewisham and Depford became involved in the case when Michael's own MP, Nigel Wateron, declined to get involved. Ms Ruddock has written to the hospital Trust calling for an explanation.

TheBigRetort will bring you more news on the disappearance of the article, and further developments in the Michael's Ashes saga.

For further see article below...

MICHAEL'S ASHES: MONEY TO BURN

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:12:00 +0000

Michael Morgan, aged 51, of Liverpool, died at Eastbourne District General Hospital in December 2007. Nothing unusual there... people die in hospital all the time. However, within two weeks his body was cremated: without his family's knowledge. In fact no one had told them he was dead. So why, seven months later, does East Sussex NHS Trust, refuse to hand over Michael's ashes to his family? Has it got money to burn? TheBigRetort investigates

[Pictured above, Kim Hodgson, CEO of East Sussex Trust.]

First, a bit of backstory from Cousin John…

"My sister called and told me that our brother had bumped into a friend of Michael's in a Liverpool bank queue who claimed he had died and been cremated - 'three months ago in Eastbourne'."

Of course it was a huge shock... the family had not even been told that he was ill.

John, a freelance investigative reporter, decided to establish the facts before calling Michael's brother in Australia.

The announcement had been published by the Eastbourne Herald Group on the 14th December 2007. Significantly... nine day after Michael's death the decision had been taken to cremate him, and made no mention of his family.

'Michael Morgan. Passed away on December 5th 2007, aged 51 years. Will be sadly missed by his friends. Funeral service will take place on Thursday, December 20th 2007 at Eastbourne Crematorium, Family Chapel at 10.30am….'

The announcement also contained the name ‘Serenity’. However, based in Eastbourne, the funeral home would not confirm any more details; other than to acknowledge that Michael’s ashes had been awaiting collection: for nearly three months.

---------------------------------------------------------
"Michael had died - with no notification to his family by the hospital – and had been cremated; his remains left sitting on a shelf in Eastbourne, for three months!"
---------------------------------------------------------

"I was passed to the Bereavement Office at Eastbourne District General Hospital (DGH). Pat Jones, bereavement officer, seemed 'pleasant but surprised' by my call."

Ms Jones claimed to John that she had attempted to reach the family, which hails from Liverpool, but had assumed that they were untraceable. Jones appeared helpful but vague.

In fact, Jones, a bereavement officer attached to Eastbourne DGH, refused to divulge how Michael had died. (She claimed that this was ‘due to the Data Protection Act’, but the Act doesn't cover dead people.) Although Jones had a death certificate in front of her she suggested that John, with his family waiting for further news, should apply for the death certificate himself.

"Given the circumstances, this did seem rather odd. I mean, she had it in front of her, why couldn't she just tell me what it said?"

Why indeed? It may have saved the family further trauma. As it was Friday John had to wait before applying for the certificate and it took some time, which only added to the trauma.

Remarkably, whilst awaiting the death certificate - which took over a week to arrive - John was surprised to receive a letter from East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust. It was dated the 3rd March, and was from the 'patient Monies Officer'. It was, how shall we put it? Well, let's just say that tea and sympathy do not lay amongst the job spec of an East Sussex Hospital NHS Trust employee.
---------------
The letter stated: 'At the time of his death, we were unable to trace any family and therefore The Trust paid for the funeral which amounted to £1,091.88. We are trying to recover our costs in this respect and should the family wish to make a donation towards the funeral it would of course be gladly accepted.'
---------------

So, let's recap… Eastbourne District General Hospitals Trust failed to notify the family of Michael's death, cremated his body - he being Roman Catholic - and then sent the family a request for a donation towards costs; costs it may have avoided had it contacted the family in the first instance, and certainly before sending the body up in smoke.

Oh, and yes, East Sussex Trust further exacerbated what was surely a delicate matter by refusing to say what their patient had died of, which does seem remarkably callous. Instead it used the Data Protection Act as if it was the ace in a game of poker. But why?

Although Ms Jones would not divulge the cause of death herself she was kind enough to give John the name and number of a man who could. A friend of Michael's had liaised via the phone with the hospital whilst Michael was ill, and after the death had also forwarded a eulogy. "He was 'nominated' next-of-kin by the deceased on admission," Jones informed.

In fact John remembered the name. "Frank was a good friend of Michael's and had known him from his schooldays. It was hoped that he could - despite the Data protection Act - tell me the cause of Michael's death: and perhaps, why the family had been seemingly forgotten."

The only family member mentioned was Michael's who died in 1976. His brother in Australia and sister, nephews and nieces and cousins in Liverpool were not mentioned in Frank's eulogy.

"I draw to a close now by thanking the pastor for these words on my behalf... The staff as bereavement district general, serenity undertakers, nursing at eatbourne general too. GREER, OLSEN AND KARLSONN and BETTS families home and abroad. DAVID and Robbie again."

And these words could not possibly endear their author to any grieving family.

Frank was the same individual who had pulled John's brother out of that Liverpool bank queue and delivered the shocking news in what was just a chance encounter. "Mick's dead... He’s been cremated," he said.

His words were to reverberate from Liverpool to London and half way across the globe ‘down under’ to Australia where Michael's brother Eddie had been residing for ten years.

Frank became upset at talking about the death and felt that John should speak to his cousin, David, who actually lived in Estbourne and was there whilst Michael was ill and dying. (Frank had never visited the hospital himself, nor was he present at the service, or cremation.)

However - the number Frank gave John belonged not to his cousin, but his cousin's secretary. It was a mobile and it switched to answerphone. John left a message but when he never received a response he contacted Frank again.

"Frank did not actually like being questioned over the telephone he insisted that I conduct future communications by email."

All very mysterious. Unfortunately Frank only looked at his emails ‘from time to time’ and this did not help matters much.

We should stress that the following is not representative of any statement made by East Sussex Hospital NHS Trust, which still remains silent on the subject, and forms Frank's opinion only.

'...his voice was extremely gurgly. like he was drinking and talking at same time, I COULD HEAR IT ON HIS CHEST......" Frank wrote, often in the upper to lower case pattern. Apparently Frank phoned the hospital, 'EVERYDAY FOR THE MONTH HE WAS THERE.'

Although East Sussex Trust would not provide this or other information we now know Michael was hospitalised for a whole month. (During which is family was not contacted.)

Frank continued his email…

'...he did not want family to know,he named me as his next of kin and said I WASHIS COUSIN, for what reason I do not know , he was adamant no-one should know , I TRIED VERY HARD TO GET HIM to contact family , he refused point blank.TOTAL REFUSAL.'

So Michael named Frank as his next of kin… However, he did so, in his words, because 'he did not want his family to know' that he was ill. (Michael’s family had suffered a lot of tragedy in the past and it is likely that he was saving them from any pain.)

Frank was in constant contact by phone during the month Michael was in hospital and he also liaised with a 'personal nurse'.

"I TOLD HER HOW UNCOMFORTABLE I was that Michael insisted no contact with family....'YOU , must realise...,and anyone else I HOPE IS READING THIS, THAT "i" WAS SUDDENLY DROPPED IN A SITUATION , BY MICHAELS STUBBORNESS.......BUT, a dying man is not someone I would refuse a request...even if I did'nt agree with it. I tried coaxing names and adresses out of him over a few days , he wanted to be healthier before anyone was told , he was also embarrassed at no contact , probably some guilt too? The simple fact of rule here ,was , if a patient tells a SOCIL WORKER no contact , thats it , cant make him, cannot!"

‘Michael’s stubbornness’? ‘A dying man’? ‘He wanted to be healthier’? As John studied these statements he wondered if there was something that the hospital may have missed in its haste to have his cousin cremated. At least he had discovered that Michael was 'embarrassed' by no contact with his family, and felt 'some guilt too', and it was due to these reasons that he, personally, did not pick up the phone.

"I had been speaking to Michael's brother Eddie just before Christmas. Both of us were really annoyed that Michael had not made contact. Now we knew why," said John.

Unknown to the family, Michael, dying, was soon to be reduced to ashes.

But how could 'a dying man’ want ‘to be healthier’? It was frustrating trying to get to the bottom of Michael's story...

This, together with other comments in the emails, suggested that Michael did not know that he was in fact dying.

"Michael apparently had emphysema, a lung complaint. A lifetime heavy smoker, I used to nag him predicting his likely end. Apparently though, according to the emails, the diagnosis lasted ‘two to three months’ and was initially missed by his doctor – ‘these things happen’ (Frank said in his eulogy). However, when two tumours formed; one on his neck and the other near the brain, the end came quite quickly."

The above was not 'official'. It came via Frank. And then from his cousin David. Apparently he had encountered Michael in the street. Quite thin at the best of times, Michael had lost 2 stone in weight. David, with Frank 'over the telephone', coaxed him into hospital. But it was too late.

However John grew concerned by a statement that Frank made in his emails which suggested the family had been ignored entirely: 'I , REQUESTED michaels ashes NOT to be scattered and they are stored,IN MY NAME TO COLLECT.'

After John questioned Frank further about this and other statements, and about his and the hospital's failure to contact the family, the ashes left sitting on a shelf, Frank then became personally affronted and abusive in his emails.

Later John received phone calls from various organisations in Eastbourne; a hotel manager, a death registry office manager, a park's manager, all claiming to be in receipt of abusive 'notes' which carried his name and email address. It was, he says, 'most bizarre'. He forwarded the details to the police.

Frank finally wrote in his last email: 'Having sought and taken advice on that verbal monologue "of shite"Which you cringingly forwarded to other family members ,WHILST YOU HIDbehind distance.....Also , having contacted various depts in Eastbourne , including police , Ihave become aware of your actions , telephone diatrades , plus insults tostaff , quite a spiteful individual......I'll have a reply , though nothing of the length of yours...it's not overlyneeded , I BECAME AWARE , of your "other side " early on in E-MAILS...?I expected a "turn" and it came ....saw it quite early.You truly get carried away don't you ? you should be carried away ,literally , and sedated....' He went on to say something that disturbed John greatly, 'You appear not very polite to staff in eastbourne , all woman too ?vI am advised to advise you , never to contact me again.'

Someone at the hospital had divulged John's private conversations. In fact, it was only following a later reply from East Sussex Trust that he accepts he may have been 'determined' and 'not very polite'- but to Kim Hodgson only. Ms Jones, speaking with Eddie who later called from Australia, did say John was 'difficult', and so he believes the statement is linked back to Jones - 'full circle'.

But 'difficult'? If a probing mind can be termed 'difficult' then John the investigator was certainly that.

"Someone tells you that your loved one died - three months ago - refuses to say how, cremates them, doesn't notify you, then asks for a 'donation' - how would you be?"

However, not only had Frank closed the door on further discussion, he had confirmed a nagging suspicion in John's mind: the hospital was not being entirely helpful. Could it have been hiding something he wondered.

Although Frank claims that he had placed an advert in the Liverpool Echo - 'in 2 separate nights' - he also claims that he placed Michael's details in the Catholic Parish letter 'sick list', which had been delivered to 7,500 addresses in Liverpool. 'Anyone read in the family.....?' he asked mockingly. Apparently not the Liverpool Echo death list, or the Catholic Parish Letter.

In addition, Frank claims that Michael phoned him on 5 separate occasions from a call box downstairs in the hospital foyer; 'The last time at 3.30 approx, the day before he died.' He said Michael was 'content and talkative'. On the other hand...

Pat Jones, bereavment officer, said to Eddie in his call to her that... towards the end Michael could only communicate by writing.

Following Frank's request, John stopped liaising with him and decided to wait for the death certificate instead; at least it would be 'official'. (When it finally arrived it recorded that the cause of death was (a) Cardiorespiratory Arrest and (b) Anaplastic Carcinoma Nasophoghy with Extension to Middle Cranial Fossa.)

Fortunately there is, as they say, more colour to the story…

With the stance taken by Frank, John quickly found himself caught between a bureaucracy guarding its secrets and a friend of Michael's, who had passed himself off as a distant cousin, and who seemed annoyed by every question.

After approximately three weeks of emails to the East Sussex Hospitals Trust for the answers to various questions, John made a subject access request under the Freedom of Information Act. Kim Hodgson, chief executive, responded:

'I should advise you that the information requested comes under the Data Protection Act and we are therefore unable to disclose this information as you are not the designated next of kin.'

Not the 'designated' next of kin? John was surprised. He was representing Michael’s brother. He was also Michael's first cousin.

Coincidentally Hodgson’s letter followed a request for a breakdown of funeral costs. Apparently these differed from those given by the funeral home: in fact the hospital costs were almost double. Of course there may have been a perfectly reasonable explanation... but John was not to hear any. The Trust remained resolutely silent on this and other issues.

John also wanted to know if any official had received any remuneration for Michael's cremation.

Such payments are not illegal and are euphemistically known as 'ash cash'. John was concerned that the ash-cash system may have acted as a disincentive to find the true next of kin. (If Michael had left a will this in fact would have been the normal procedure.)

In fact, although Pat Jones would not tell John what it said on the death certificate he was surprised to see her name recorded as informant on it; and her job description that was given as 'causing the body to be cremated'.

"I also wanted to know, following past events at other hospitals across England and Waled, whether any body parts had been 'taken'."

East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust instead hid behind the Data Protection Act and Michael's friend Frank, whom they appeared to elevate to a position that usurped the family's. It did so by not only using Frank, but by employing an Act that does not cover dead people, and its behavior is, undoubtedly, suspect. Why if the family was not 'designated' did it receive that request for a donation?

Although the hospital refused to respond in writing it did issue assurances (via the phone) with regards to the body parts. "We don’t do that," Ms Jones said affronted. However, given the East Sussex NHS Trust’s readiness to employ the Data Protections Act as and when it suited, may we have that in writing p-l-e-a-s-e?

The silence that followed was deafening and yet it spoke volumes...

Although CEO Kim Hodgson refused to answer the above questions - due to the Data Protection Act - (the Act as stated previously that does not cover dead people) the request for information on the Trust's attempts (?) to find Michael's family is worthy of note... there wasn't any. If there was then the information about the search for the family is the family's information. So why not release it?

In addition, the rights of a person deputised to look after the rights and needs of a living patient do not override those of the deceased's family. So why the current stance?

Well, John did tell the hospital that the family was going to have the ashes tested. Could this be why they refused to hand them over?

"It's anyone, if not all of several possibilities," John and Eddie concluded. "But in truth we are grasping in the dark with sunglasses on."

But how did the East Sussex NHS Trust allow the matter to descend into what now seems like a legal and moral nightmare?

Pat Jones of the Bereavement Office claimed that Michael, with a tumour pressing against his brain, was living 'in squalor'.

Most of his belongings were eventually placed in a skip by the council, including family photographs stretching back generations. (Frank told John that he may be in possession of some items. He had also applied for a deposit that Michael had placed on his flat but without any luck.)

East Sussex NHS Trust, not quick to see the contradiction, wrote, 'The hospital does hold a mobile phone, a pocket watch, a passport and a birth certificate... which we would be pleased to release to a family member.' [Emphasis added.]

A CASE OF NOW YOU AINT NOW YOU ARE... AND NOW YOU AINT AGAIN.

True to form, along with the ashes, the East Sussex NHS Trust ignores requests to hand over even these items. Ironically though they may have led the hospital to Michael's family. Evidence then that nothing was done?

Instead, Pat Jones, bereavement officer, the one who was charged with 'causing the body to be cremated', claimed that she had attempted to contact the family via the Merseyside Police. However, this has little resonance. With its modus operandus of conveniently dodging the 'awkward' questions, the East Sussex Trust has a few question marks over its bereavment management, and its morals.

"Our family is still in Toxteth,' Eddie said. 'It's not that hard to find us... And if they did try to find us why don't they prove it? Instead they are now saying that we can't have my brother's ashes. It's disgusting."

In order to confirm the claim made by the hospital, John also requested evidence that Michael filled in a box on admission with the name of his 'telephone friend'. However, East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust steadfastly refuses to produce it.

John thinks he understands why... When I initially spoke with the hospital they said that the box was 'empty'."

Whatever the truth, East Sussex Trust's (silent) refusal to release Michael's ashes in order that they may be buried alongside his mother in Liverpool ensures that the "Eastbourne Scandal" will remain for some time a topic of some discussion; certainly in Michael's hometown of Liverpool.

Unfortunately requests for the release of Michael’s ashest continue to go ignored; and they, if indeed 'they' are his, still sit on a shelf at Serenity, the Eastbourne funeral home. Additionally, further requests to the Trust's media office have been referred back to CEO Kim Hodgson's response, and so the stable doors are firmly closed on the family. But not quite...

"Michael must be returned to Liverpool and laid to rest with his mother. We as a family - wherever we live - are determined. Liverpool was his birthplace. He always thought of himself as a son of Liverpool... And Liverpool will be his resting place," John states.

Ironically Kim Hodgson is herself a strange nemesis... Probably one of the most photogenic CEOs in the United Kingdom, in 2006 her dog, a rare Weimaraner-cross puppy called Blue, was held to ransom. The crooks demanded £2,000. Hodgson slammed the police investigation into the theft for ‘not progressing quickly enough'. Then aged 39, Hodgson, who was given the top job at East Sussex under some controversy, said: "When I phoned the police they didn't take it that seriously. They said 'it's just a dog' to my face. She's not just a dog to me.... If it was a child I am sure they would trace it quicker than this. In some ways," Hodgson told The Argus (and this is a cracker), "if Blue was dead it would be better, that's because I would have closure."

What does John say?

"If Kim found closure in any sense we do not know. But the parallels - and the hypocrisy - cannot possibly go without comment: it is 'closure' that we - Michael's family - seek too."

Perhaps if Michael had been a ‘rare breed’ then Hodgson may have been able to empathise. Who knows?

"Heads or tails, cuz?" Michael used to say to John.

Heads indeed will roll, eventually.

-----[Below, Michael during happier times in Liverpool with friends.]

Michael Morgan was born in 1956 in Liverpool (where he often made his family and friends laugh), and he died at Eastbourne DGH in December 2007. Formerly a merchant seaman he loved the sea, and the River Mersey. He was a ‘rare breed’ and will be sadly missed.
---------------------------
If you would like to sign TheBigRetort condolence book with thoughts or comments then please do. If you have had a similar experience at the hands of the Eastbourne DGH or the East Sussex Trust, or know (or have known) any of the persons involved in this report, then please get in touch (in the strictest confidence).

BARACK OBAMA: WHY HE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:55:00 +0000

As the child of a black man and white woman Barack Obama is often (simply) referred to as 'black'. A description that will one day serve to display a time of ignorance - because Barack Obama is much much more.

"There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America," Obama once wrote.

However, note in the above paragraph from his book The Audacity of Hope that there is no capital letter on black and white. In fact, neither is a nation, and neither is a culture. Obama, born between the two, has already made the journey and knows this. And, although many in the US have leaned heavily on 'skin' difference for quite some time this presidential candidate - if elected - would help a young nation recognise that any 'difference' between them is countered by that which unites: America.

Meanwhile, in 2008, a fledgling nation stands at the crossroads. A presidential candidate, born in the racial melting pot of Hawaii, with a half Indonesian sister, a brother in-law and niece of Chinese descent, with blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher, and others who could pass for Bernie Mac? America, you decide.

But before you do: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

"Adleech" parasite leads to Russia

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:45:00 +0000

An "Adleech" parasite - not to be confused with Adsense - is currently swamping the wordldwideweb in unsolicited ads, is growing, and looks set to change the web as we know it- in fact authors are downing their quills and just saying a Big Nancy Reagan to Adleech. In other words, "No". So what is Adleech and from where does it come?

Adleech is a term we coined in a previous posting. It is used to describe those annoying little ads that have started appearing alongside articles posted on the web via various Blogs and Websites. (Just Google "thebigretort" and you will see what we mean. The ads promise to deliver an article via a hyperlink, but when a reader clicks on the link s/he only discovers a one-page ad with no content other than 'Mp3' hard sell riding on the coat-tails of the main article.)

A list of domains with unsolicited ads attached to TheBigRetort is currently growing, and, although we are happy to see our Google presence rise (due to the work we put it), we are not at all happy to be associated with the current campaign. (In fact, our opinion on Adleech can be gleaned from part of the title we created. And, for the record... TheBigRetort does not receive any remuneration these links. Save for those ads listed on our site we do not sponsor links in this manner.)

We have for some time now seen a growth in a readership from Brockley to Beijing. And it is one for which we work tirelessly, endlessly, long into the night, and for very little - if any - remuneration (hint-hint). However, when we discovered some unwanted parasites in Moscow, we just had to take a closer look at who was sticking the nuclear finger. Was it Putin? Could it have been that nasty old KGB? Or was it ... Agent "Dmitry"?

The administrative contact for the majority of the domains that were causing us such a headache were registered to one "Holes Dmitry". However, emails to Agent Dmitry remained unanswered. Dmitry, in short, was an elusive twat. He had also registered other domains that he had then gone on to attach to our articles, which also made him a right C U Next Tuesday too.

A list as long as your arm were registered via ESTDOMAINS, INC - MP3SKYLION.COM, MP3LOOPUP.COM, MP3CARZ.COM etc. However 'Konstantin' of Estodomains blaimed the hosting company. (A contact email for the hosting company was also given.)

But Dmitry wasn't alone... Others, like Dmitry, had shielded their identities through a company styled "PrivacyProtect.org". Supposedly based in the Netherlands, PrivacyProtect.org led us to a company styled "Directi". (It goes on.)

The companies are the creation of two brothers based in India. Bhavin Turakhia was very helpful actually and promised that someone 'from my team will shortly connect with you and provide you an appropriate response. we are known as a white hat registrar and are very very strict w.r.t our abuse prevention policies.'

It is fair to say that due to Bhavin's intervention we not only had confirmation that Directi and PrivacyProtect.org were connected, but our complaint was also then fast-tracked. (A link between these two companies (and others) was established by the most excellent DomainDetectives.net. Another company that doesn't answer emails but is quite remarkable in its pursuit of identity shielders.)

The identity shield was later removed, and the identities of adleech sites owners was 'revealed' - in as much as 'Dmitry' or 'Nick' etc could be that revealing. PrivacyProtect.org also listed additional domain owners that TheBigRetort now drags into the light (most of them belong to Dmitry);

MP3SKYLION.COM

MP3LOOPUP.COM

MP3CARZ.COM

1PODMP3.COM

RNP3F1ESTA.COM

HANZMUSIC.COM

TORONTOMP3S.COM

It further claimed that 'the problem that you have brought to our notice needs to be filed (sic) Hosting Provider of the domain names.' And so our woes did not end there either...

TheBigRetort coined a new cyberphrase in accusing peddlers of MP3 as 'adleechers', little wonder that a cheeky adleecher then attached a series of MP3 ads to the article about adleeching. (Perhaps with a hearty bell laugh. See torrentsrapidsharemusic.com/rapidshare-artist2608-accused.asp. But please don't buy the product, or click on the links.)

INMP3Z.COM was created at 20-Mar-2008. Again the registrar Estodomains pops up. and its appropriately styled "SEOHELL.ORG" nameservers pointed us towards a company styled Cernel, Inc. (We wrote to the host informing it that a 'Nick (mailto:karrambas@gmail.com) also based in Moscow, but at the time of writing had received no response. In fact, the same person has also registered another adleech on that same date via another domain.)

So, as we write, so shall we sow.

Coming soon in TheBigRetort.... the response.

London Mayor: knife crime and Maria

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:14:00 +0000

TheBigRetort calls it Maria's Law... The type of law Boris Johnson and other politicians continually promote - with little or no understanding of why youths carry knives or guns on the streets of London.

First up, get this, there is no such thing as the 'black community', so called 'race advisors' couldn't give advice on a new mortgage let alone (black) crime, neither can models for dealing with the problem be imported from America (a racial melting pot if ever, with all the cream at the top and the 'coffee' below), and not all black 'kids' carry knives because they are villains... it's because they are scared shitless.

Actually the history of carrying a weapon in self defence in Britain is rather much older than the authorities would have us believe...

Liverpool street circa 1972/3 and a fifteen-year-old mixed race youth. White Scousers' call him a 'alf cast, a nigger, a wog. One evening, while walking home with his bezzy mate, his 'spar'. Suddenly eight white youths set about them...

He - foolish youth - makes his way into a chip shop where the owner sees what is happening. He orders him to leave. However, the boy begs the owner to call the police.

On the other hand the owner is afraid too. He resists this. As the racist gang enters he flees to the back of his shop.

The racist white youths set about beating the mixed-race youth, so much so that they kick his head through the shop counter then call for a knife or axe to 'finish the fucking nigger!'

Fortunately they can't find one. Nevertheless they make do with using his head and chest as a trampoline. He blacks out with the repeated kicks to the balls (very painful), and then wakes to the sound of the Chinese shopkeeper: 'You pay for my chippie!'

He's alive... barely.

An unusual event in 70s Liverpool? No such luck... an everyday occurrence. (It did not help matters that he saw the cops pretending to write into their notebooks, whilst all the time their pens were hovering... on air. They did not get back to him as they said they would.)

'Listen man, no matter what dem JB (John bull) tells yer, you's black. An' a little bit of colour is colour too much for dem. An 'e'go take yer black ass an' give it licks.'(Don't know why they talked like that as they all had Scouse accents really.)

The youth, with no guidance from an African-American father, then living back in the USA with family number two, hears the familiar mantra from his 'brothers'. Of course the youth has heard this all before. They were right about that colour thing though. Although his mother was white people seemed more interested in where his father was from. (Barack Obama will have a similar problem when, decades later, he is mooted as the first black president. A little bit of colour... sticks, Mr President.)

After many years though it does wear him down. He tried to resist, as best he could... until then. But they are now his family. They look after him and so he must look after them. He had resisted the call to 'arm'. But that day, from his hospital bed, he remembered the 'fear'.

Had he wet himself? He couldn't remember.

But what if those racists had knives? What if the Chinese shopkeeper had handed them that axe? What if...? There were too many "ifs". Anyway, which ever way you looked at it, it was better to take a life then let that life take yours. Wasn't it?

The feel of steel tucked discreetly down his trouser leg, right side, inside his boot, feels... reassuring, and, once a victim, caught up in Maria's law, he is now a villain, a thug, a hoodie, a black - 'colour'.

How do you solve a problem like Maria, a will o' a wisp, a clown? How do you solve a problem like Maria? How do catch the Press and pin it down? How can you hold a moonbeam in your hand? So many "ifs" and "hows".

Of course, if push came to shove he would never really use it anyway - would he?

GoDaddy: the Odd Bob or two, and the Clickfraud Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:55:00 +0000

Around the globe the words 'domain' and 'cash parking' are synonymous with GoDaddy. So why are 70% of the reviews on the first page of Google so negative? TheBigRetort investigates... and finds the odd Bob or two. (Pictured left, Bob Parsnips, founder GoDaddy.)

Google GoDaddy along with Cashparking and it quickly becomes evident that all is not well in Elsinore. (That's Denmark for all our American readers.) Indeed... the praise once heaped on the largest domain name registrar in the world has now turned to opprobrium. There is a pestilence in the land and many a brave knight quickly stirs abroad to other domains. (Oops. We quote a writer of plays born over here.) What we mean is, here's just one of many critiques...

"I like GoDaddy.com and I admire Bob Parsons, his 'bigger than life' personality and panache reflecting on GoDaddy, so it’s not personal, it’s business," one disgruntled critic wrote. He had invested in the GoDaddy Cashparking scheme but when he saw the cash disappear he realised something was not quite right. He was concerned by the lack of 'plain words' in GoDaddy's terms of service, such as the 'other similar methods' in relation to what type of traffic GoDaddy 'allowed'. A definition that could accommodate virtually anything - and was meant to.

GoDaddy's pays out in three monthly cycles and this can lead to abuse of the cashparking system - by the registrar itself. In the above case several thousand dollars had accumulated but was destined to remain in GoDaddy's deep pockets. The advertising revenue was invalidated by GoDaddy - 'siezed', or so he alleged. His advice: avoid Godaddy Cash Parking. (Click here.)

But can uncertainty be part of a Bob Parsons masterplan to even greater wealth?

After all, Parsons can recall his war service years with such startling clarity - thirty years on - that such an accusation must fail to impress. In fact, here's just a few snippets of what the founder of GoDaddy has posted about his 'days' in Vietnam. "I can remember arriving on that hill in the middle of nowhere. The night prior, the squad I was newly assigned to had been ambushed and most of them were killed. It wasn’t that moment I got afraid. Later that night I sat on this wall of an old French fort and looked into this valley and thought – this is it…I’m going to die here and I accepted that and from then on I was OK.... From the next day on, my only goal and I mean my only goal, was to simply make it to mail call. I figured that I would take small steps, tie them together, and it would get me to the finish line and that thought is what I use today to make GODADDY successful – simply get to the next day."

So that's it, in a nutshell... or is it?

Bob Parsons enlisted in the US Marine Corps in 1968. He arrived in Vietnam, in his words, 'by late February 1969'. However, Delta Company rosters record that "Parsons, Bob, R" commenced his tour of duty at the 1st January 1969 - seven weeks before the date he in fact claims.

On February 22, four Delta Co marines were indeed killed and six more wounded. If the rosters are correct then the 5-week stint followed a rather inactive period for Delta Company, and for Bob.

The events are said to have influenced Bob's life... forever, and he was apparently later medically evacuated from Hill 190 after being wounded in Quang Nam...(that the buttocks) five weeks after arriving there. (Or should that be five weeks after he claims he arrived there?

[Bob Parsons is unlikely to screw up his dates so there is probably another explanation for the discrepancy. We suggest a closer look at his terms and conditions. The Delta Co. Marines killed in the vicinity of Hill 190 that day were, Woodrow W. Adams, LCpl. Michael Cruse, Cpl. Edward Gum and Cpl. Robert W. Topham, Jr. See "History of Delta 1/26" by Tom Howard at delta126.org for a full account. The Command Chronologies Command Chronologies of 1st Battalion 26th Marines date from August 1966 to- March 1970. They are not available for the month that Parsons claims he was there.]

But TheBigRetort ventures too far into the enemy's paddy fields on what is essentially a dark night, so back to domain basics... (Quick get that one.)

TheBigRetort's first article in the GoDaddy Series was last seen comfortably sitting on the second page of Google, which is not too bad for a tiny English blog more accustomed to rocking the boat in Dear Old Blighty than across the Pond in the Americas (where it is also read). But now, according to a recent Google search, it is almost rubbing shoulders with GoDaddy itself. No mean feat...

In the words of SEO guru David Viney in his book Get to the top on Google: "84% of searchers never make it past the bottom of page two of search engine results. Just think about this for a moment. Imagine the web is one giant city, with stores scattered through it. Having your site in the top 10 is like having your store right on Main Street or near the entrance of the largest shopping mall in human history. Being outside the top 20 is like having a corner store on the outskirts of town."

But first, a gentle reminder from our sponsor.

Our previous expose revealed that GoDaddy founder B-o-b P-a-r-s-o-n-s (the m-a-r-i-ne with the ring) pocketed $1.6 million in advertising revenue from parked pages. It beats working, as many of the domains belonged to people who had purchased them from the Baltimore Bully himself. Wowgolly indeed. GoDaddy offered the opportunity for one and all to share in its revenue success via its new CashParking scheme - at a price naturally - and so TheBigRetort snook a little look at what Daddy was up to. And we were not that impressed.

"Earn up to 80% of ad revenue" boasted its CashParking Plan. (GoDaddy keeps the other 20%'. Oh, and don't forget... you must also pay for the right to use the CashParking plan too. Get it? DOES THE PHRASE MONEY FOR OLD DOMAINS SPRING TO MIND?) Not sure what you domain name you need? Then 'https' - GoDaddy's secure server is the place for Y-O-U.

When TheBigRetort invested in the scheme the revenue generated from its rather sizeable portfolio remained no more than a trickle, and what cash did come our way suddenly and inexplicably disappeared. The domains, thebaserate.com and loaniduk.com, had done a Houdini - alongside approximately $20 that also vanished from the CashParking account. We decided to find out what had happened...

It usually takes GoDaddy's Sales & Support team 24 hours to respond to queries - even though the company boasts a '24/7' 'support - and getting anwers from its media office and the Office of the President were equally problematic and 'vague'. (We wondered if the PR department at GoDaddy was working overtime to 'bury' a certain story that had been hovering on Google's page two... until it moved up the Google ranks. It's now in the top ten.)

GoDaddy previously accrued $1.6 million in advertising revenue from 'parked' domains, for itself. It did not share this revenue with its customers and so TheBigRetort wanted a few nuggets of wisdom from Bob Parsons himself. We wanted to know if any other customers were as lucky. We also wanted to know what had happened to two domains and $20. GoDaddy initially claimed that the two domains were 'both correctly pointing' at its cash parking nameservers, only to add later, 'But the domain names are set up to forward to external URLs. In order for these domains to properly resolve to the cash parking account, the forwarding will need to be removed.' Double-Dutch to us.

However, when GoDaddy then responded (eventually) that this was not in fact the real problem we wondered if we could smell 'vagueness'. The two domains had been completely removed. In addition, GoDaddy was suddenly threatening to close down 'the entire' Cash Parking account. It explained why: "These determinations are not made based on the amount of traffic that comes to your domains. The amount of impressions to your domain(s) is not a determining factor by GoDaddy or Google. It is not permitted for you to routinely click on your own links in the Cash Parking system."

Routinely click? On our own links?

Apparently CashParking is designed to share the revenue generated on domains based on (i) Accidental Traffic; mistypes, etc., or (ii) Residual Traffic; domains that have undergone a change of ownership. This usually happens when a registrant forgets to renew, and then the person who lifts the domain steals his traffic, which is in itself a rather astonishing and immoral concept. GoDaddy was confidently stating that it was okay to earn money out of other people making typing errors - accidental traffic - or by 'passing off' as the longstanding owner of a previous site. Although many punters believe that the 'residual' traffic becomes theirs by default this is not always the case. Some purchasers suddenly encounter empty space with no old links to the domain name.

Surprisingly, with the above lofty ideal, GoDaddy Cash Parking does not allow the intentional generation of traffic to any of your domains via a link for instance (even with a warning) - so there appears to be very little way of gaining any income from the cash parking scheme. Something GoDaddy does not immediately point out at the point of purchase. (It's buried somewhere in its terms and conditions, aka the small print.) Indeed TheBigRetort has so far concluded that much of GoDaddy's cashparking 'revenue' is based on the naivety of the purchaser (its customers), and is one-sided. Conveniently, allegations of clickfraud, often unsubstantiated, lead to a convenient expulsion with retention of the revenue raised.

But what domains had been 'routinely clicked' in our portfolio and by whom we asked.

"The most common problem leading to a determination such as this is the Click Through Rate (CTR), or the percentage of clicks vs. total impressions to your domain. This is a fairly accurate way to determine if the behavior of the impressions to your domain is consistent with what Google would determine as "natural behavior". We find that natural human traffic will result in Click Through Rates (CTR) of no more than 40% on sites with more than 1 or 2 visitors. CTR's significantly or consistently higher than that are usually indicative of incentivized clicks, click groups, or software programs designed to simulate click traffic."

What 'click groups'? Could we see a report?

"We are unable to provide full reports on the statistics that caused these traffic patterns. Unnatural traffic is defined as traffic that any given domain may see when not advertised, or targeted. Normal traffic does not generally cause the amounts of traffic we see on your domain name, thus is considered to be unnatural and provoked. Residual Traffic tends to taper off after a period of time where as incidental traffic traditionally does not have high click through rates. In this instance the domain does not fit into either category as the traffic appears to be steady and excessively high."

Twenty dollars...

According to GoDaddy rival competitors can also click on a competitors ads in order to undermine his or her campaign and exhaust their budget.

In addition, you may not generate traffic to your website or Go Daddy's links by any 'listings on newsgroups, bulk e-mailing, icq postings, chatroom postings, iframes, zero pixel frames, hitbots, clickbots, spiders, cgi-scripts, JavaScript, click farms or any other similar method'.

So no advertising at all - which means no bucks.

"This includes clicking on your own links. As a result, your Cash Parking service has been permanently suspended. Our regulations are in line with those of Google. As Google will not be providing revenue to us for what has been deemed to be unnatural traffic, we will not have any revenue to share with you."

But hadn't Google already paid GoDaddy a bundle of cash?

We attempted to open a dialogue with Bob Parsons, ex-marine, founder of Godaddy and its chairman. We wanted to know how he managed to make $1.6 million from cashparking... and we also wanted a copy of the report in order that we could conduct our own investigation into the 'click fraud scandal'. But it wasn't that easy...

"Please be aware that our founder and CEO, Mr. Parsons, is extremely busy with his vast array of duties and thus is not able to personally reply to emails sent to our office given the amount of correspondence, " came the terse response. "As you may already know our President and COO is Mr. Adelman. Mr. Adelman reviews all messages delivered to this address; due to the volume he is unable to reply personally. However, at his discretion he may opt to do so or add to the comments of our office." It added, "Unfortunately for security purposes we cannot discuss the methods used to monitor this traffic, and this includes the information found on the domain names in question."

Sent to Guantanamo, without trial, beaten by the 'evidence' - the GoDaddy jury had reached its verdict, however vague. Meanwhile... in the Cashparking pages themselves the message could not have been more clear: "Domains not allowed due to fraudulent activity".

Coming soon... TheBigRetort.com

GoDaddy, Cashparking, and Clickfraud...TheBgRetort

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:11:00 +0000

GoDaddy is the largest domain name registrar in the 'electric universe'. During the final six months of 2005 approximately one-third of all domain names (the top five) were registered via this registrar. By the end of May 2006, it managed approximately 14.2 million domain names. As a 'best-of-breed' it is also North America’s largest shared website hosting provider. But when TheBigRetort tried to put a series of questions to its founder it met with a wall of silence - unusual considering its founder's usual retort: "If GoDaddy.com is anything, it is an outspoken company and I am an outspoken CEO." So why was Daddy being so evasive? First, a bit of blurb on founder B-o-b P-a-r-s-o-n-s.

Robert Parsons is the CEO and Chairman of GoDaddy. Prior to founding the company in 1997, he also founded Parsons technology. Bob and his then wife grew the software company out a basement kitchen. A decade later the pair sold it for many millions of dollars. Retirement did not sit well... Bob soon turned his attention to domain name registration. He had noted how expensive it was... And the entrepreneur was if anything the archangel of the low priced deal. He founded GoDaddy - a name that came out of the aether - and quickly established him (through dogged determination and chutzpah it must be acknowledged) as the Wizard of cut-price domains. At the age 19 he was a rifleman in the U.S. Marine Corps (1968 - 1970) and the recipient of several medals. He is also a Certified Public Accountant. He remains the titular head of GoDaddy. He and also wears an earring. He likes bikes as much as girls. (Godaddy girls that is. And if you saw them you would understand why.) But, to the nub of our Go Daddy rub...
......

In 2006 it was reported that GoDaddy planned to go public. Lehman Brothers was hired to handle the IPO. Prior to that date not much was known about the company's profitability. Go Daddy was a private company and its business was its business, however the S-1 filing was the first public scrutiny of its financial health... it revealed considerable net losses. With the books out in the open it became public knowledge that this had happened every year since the year of its inception. Under "Risks related to our Business" the filing also stated, '.... and may not be able to operate profitably or sustain positive cash flow in future periods.' As investors in GoDaddy's success, it was this that concerned us most. There were others...

GoDaddy planned to use the net proceeds received from the offering to repay approximately $7.2 million indebtedness (in addition to working capital etc). However, although the company was making year on year losses, it was, its founder later emphasised, also experiencing rapid growth.

At that time many wondered if Parsons himself might 'subdue his expressions' once the company went public. "He's one of the most outspoken CEOs in the industry, whose personal and professional leanings are never in doubt. That sort of divisive, outspoken approach may not gel quite as well with Wall Street investment bankers as it does with his blog audience," one online critic remarked. The offering hoped to raise more than 100 million dollars and value Go Daddy at 250 million dollars or more. But the IPO was abruptly pulled.

Dominic Jones later reported that a scrapped IPO is rarely a good thing. "It suggests the company being shopped is a lemon. Companies that pull their IPOs traditionally go off to some dark corner with their tails between their legs ... many observers might well have interpreted the news as Wall Street kicking another dog out to the curb."

However Parsons was never one for hiding in dark corners. (Unless it was in the rice fields of Nam, where it was thought wise to adopt such a position.) He later blogged that the submission was 'approved' by the SEC itself and that this assumption was wrong. There were three main reasons that he decided to pull the plug; (i) the Middle East conflict, interest rate jitters and tech stock weakness; (ii) lack of appreciation for GoDaddy’s cash generating power and, calling the financial media stupid, because none had studied the company's cash flow statements, he claimed (iii) that Daddy was not desperate and had generated significant operating cash flow during each reporting period.

Surprisingly Parsons claims that the submission had been 'approved' by the SEC. However, the S1 actually states: 'Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities regulator has approved or disapproved these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete.'

Oh Daddy... Bob may not realise it but any representation that suggests otherwise is actually 'criminal' and may make any claimant subject to a long stay at Guantanamo. (Mind you, as this is place he apparently approves of it may be most welcome.)

And that brings us to Cashparking...
.....

"EARN UP TO 80% REVENUE" "CASH PARKING - TURN YOUR PARKED DOMAINS INTO CASH"

According to the GoDaddy blurb it's easy with CashParking. 'Whether you have one domain or a growing portfolio, CashParking can turn those domains into a cash generator!' The offer is made via a number of Cashparking plans from which anyone buying a domain can

'get ready to share in parked domain revenue'. Really?

Bob Parsons himself, blind to any faults, directly boasts, ''Go Daddy is putting its reputation in the domain name industry to work for our customers so CashParking can provide the highest revenue share payouts, making for quick and easy income potential for domain holders from their parked domain names.'' Which leads to another... really?

GoDaddy itself earned $1.6 million from its own cashparking 'scheme'. But this was prior to sharing it with the persons who owned those domains. Now things are different and B-o-b wants to share his success... So why is it that when TheBigRetort invested in a portfolio of domains 'connoting the top five' we saw the dollars flooding out - not in? (In place of the two domains, TheBaseRate.com and LoanAiduk.com, was a little Sherlock Holmes sign, complete with magnifying glass, saying: This site is currently NOT available. (Emphasis GoDaddy's.)

What oh what had taken place? We wrote to find out....

Coming soon in TheBigRetort... the answer. (Visit NamePros for domain discussion and advice. NoDaddy.com for informed views on the company.)

.....

ET MAY NOT USE PHONES

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:15:00 +0000

The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence may have been looking for the 'wrong thing'. So says Steven J. Dick, former official SETI historian, and author of The Biological Universe.

Writing in NewScientist (31 May 2008, p21.) the NASA historian claims that SETI scientists may 'not be thinking big enough'.

A limited search of our own Milky Way Galaxy has been conducted but with no sign yet of ET, not even a whisper. Dick suggests that this is because the search continues to focus on biological creatures (like us) whilst ignoring the 'likelihood' that such intelligence may have evolved 'beyond biology'.

He proposes what he calls the "intelligence principle": the driving force of cultural evolution, where is can be improved it will be improved.

Dick claims that ET will have eventually improved itself into an Artificial Intelligence - AI - perhaps as seen in the Speilberg film. It is predicted by others that this will also take place with mankind in a few generations. (Providing we continue our journey along the evolutionary path.) It is for these reasons that Dick believes we live in a "post-biological universe" - and in order to make SETI produce its stellar fruit we should acknowledge this.

He writes, 'The SETI search need not be confined to Earth-like planets, or even to planets at all.' The disparity between this biological and post biological civilisation may be so great that communication with it and us may be impossible, or so he argues.

This too is as much flawed as Dick appears to suggest SETI may also be. Dick says ET may have evolved off planet once it ceased to be a biological entity. However this too is where his own thesis is at fault.

The argument in favour of a post-biological civilisation search is totally unnecessary, and for the following reasons... If some ETs have progressed towards the heady and safe status of "Artificial Intelligence" then this should not necessarily make the SETI search elsewhere more attractive - less so in fact.

Mankind's evolution in a cosmic context is of interest however... Any creature taking its technological path towards advancement would have left some "cosmic residue". It is this same CR that we too have left along our own path. It is "I Love Lucy" and all other television and radio programmes beamed across our solar system - and beyond - for nearly half a century: otherwise known as electro-magnetic waves.

If ET did not use such a means of communication in its evolutionary progress then we can be sure that there will be other forms that will one day betray themselves. For it is this residue, these echoes of civilisations gone (and advanced), that would still be writ large in the skies above.

Undoubtedly this would remain so for millenia, if not forever and, as with humans, if an ET civilisation had once used radio waves - and then advanced on to some more exotic means of communication - these artifacts of an extra-terrestrial bygone era would still be moving across interstellar (or intergalactic space) ... towards us.

Embarrassing not only for AI but its proponents too...

As you read this article evidence of a past interstellar civilisation may have just crossed the boundary of our own solar system and may just be hours away from the 'ears' of our most sensitive instruments. ('Past' in that such a civilisation has moved on to a greater intelligence and not been destroyed which, if given our own evolution, seems more likely.)

No, Mr Dick, the fact that ET may no longer use phones or have a home to phone home to is irrelevant. It is the fact that this technological journey coincided with the one we now follow that offers us the hope that many ETs would (possibly) be discoverable using present techniques - and 'possibly' with little refinement too.

ET keep phoning home, please.

...........

SOFA NOT SO SUITE

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:05:00 +0000

TheBigRetort can reveal that a recent allergic epidemic that has been studied in Lahti, Finland, has found that being a dog - or a couch potato for that matter -may seriously damage your health. In fact, if that sofa has been made in China reclining in front of the telly may not be so 'suite'.

A Finnish study into the background to a recent epidemic that stretched the length and breadth of Britain has identified the substance that has caused agonising suffering in thousands of people. Chinese-made settees sold by Argos and Land of Leather have been named as the culprits of a violent irritant-related eczema, blisters, weeping and cracking.

After studying five patients the Finnish study concluded that the allergies related to a newly purchased chair or sofa. Furniture samples were analysed and compounds identified using a mass spectrum library and measured. The patients showed strong reactions to upholstery fabric samples and to dimethylfumarate, 'down to a level of 1 p.p.m. in the most severe case'.

Scientists concluded that the cause of the epidemic was likely to be contact allergy to the dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitiser. All sofas were traced to the same factory owned by Chinese firm 'Linkwise'. Apparently it had treated the furniture with 'a potent fungicide' to stop them going mouldy in storage. Customers have now been warned of the batch numbers affected with what is now termed "sofa dermatitis" over one year after the first outbreak.

So where was Trading Standards in all this?

A number of personal injury lawyers are currently trawling the Net in search of clients. In Wrexham a woman who purchased a brown Bari sofa from Argos was left with a severe rash to her buttocks. In another regions one victim came out with an allergic reaction; shortly after purchasing the sofa in May 2007 his symptoms included a painful rash on his back, thigh and hands. 'The distribution of his eczema coinciding with where he would sit at the end of the sofa.' A doctor later concluded that it was due to 'sofa dermatitis'.

Meanwhile 'Answers at Yahoo' suggested to a concerned pet owner that a 7-year old Yorkie was 'most likely having an allergic reaction to something she rubbed her face on outside.' But the dog (not pictured) may have identified the source of the epidemic some time back...

It developed a red rash like look around both eyes and face like a chemical burn. The dog's eyes were swollen and the skin around them bright pink. Although it was claimed by the dog's owner that the dog developed the symptoms after being out alone in the yard for just a few hours, its concerned owner informed Answers that it would later 'rub her face against the settee'. It now seems likely that the crafty canine was trying to tell its owner that the sofa was the cause of its irritation.
.....

When informed by the TheBigRetort that the source of the epidemic had finally been identified - almost a year after it began - the dog is alleged to have barked, 'Fang heavens.'

64.233.183.104 MP3

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:05:00 +0000

Have we entered an episode of Lost? Or are we simply that popular a publication that major conglomerates wish to cosy-up with we pond life? If so, perhaps it's time we started practising safer sex. Because when TheBigRetort gets rogered we prefer a condom and a smile, rather than a dot.con.

Why is it that practically every article we write appears to carry advertising for "MP3" and the ISP "64.233.183.104"? Complaints to "fronts" like PrivacyProtect.org (ON WHOM MORE LATER) - appear to go ignored. (This 'organisation' itself is shrouded in mystery.) And we are simply referred back to our domain name registrar where we are offered privacy... but at a price. In other words you pay we stop. Suspicious or what?

However, phew, UK law ensures that privacy does not have a dollar sign attached to it. In other words private details should, as far as human rights go, remain just that: p-r-i-v-a-t-e. So why is it that the registrants of domain names need to pay their registrars for that privacy? (Odd that, innit?)

However, we stroll too far down the path of righteousness. Privacy is not the thrust of our concerns. In our case a number of copyright articles are repeatedly hijacked by a person or persons selling MP3 and, although the headlines and body of the front text can be read, there is no story on the landing page, no link that acknowledges the fabulous BIGRETORT, just an MP3 'endorsement' - of sorts.

We say of sorts because it's downright dodgy. Certainly TheBigRetort would never endorse a product like MP3, or such an underhanded way of marketing it.

We conclude that this is obviously a dreadful product best avoided, peddled by a company that has little regard for copyright law or fair play - and one that needs its identity shield lifted.

In the forthcoming months we will be researching these cyber bloodsuckers and identity shield fronts... and lift the veil.

GODADDY, CASHPARKING AND "CLICKFRAUD"

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:47:00 +0000

Coming soon... TheBigRetort lifts the lid on GoDaddy, Cashparking, and "Clickfraud".

Watch this space.... it may shock you.

Alexa ranking

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:48:00 +0000

Since TheBigRetort's birth we have been known under a host of names; thebigretort.blogspot, mybigretort, myretort, etc. But have so many different e-monikers led to the dilution of traffic. If Alexa is anything to go by... then the answer is Yes.

According to the Amazon subsidiary, TheBigRetort.com receives no ranking whatsoever. Whilst thebigretort.blogspot.com reached the dizzy (or should that be lowly) heights of 10,707, 828.

The data also shows that 63,004 sites have linked in to us, and that we are based in India - which we are not. Hijacked, forgotten, or simply ignored?

DELL FIXES PROBLEM IT CREATES: FOR A PRICE

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:18:00 +0000

There is nothing worse than writing a lengthy document than that moment, that split second, when the screen on your computer suddenly goes inexorably blank. You wonder if there has been a power cut... Until you realise that the computer you are using is a Dell Inspiron 1000. [So named because that's just about the amount of words you may be able to type before the screen fades to black.] It is a 'budget notebook' after all. Be warned...

When we encountered such a problem, Dell technical support instructed... 'empty the laptop of its battery, switch off the electricity, and to press the power on button for 10 seconds'. [It also asked us to fill in an online survey. As we could not get online that would, we said, be rather difficult.]

The call centre in India and the team was not to be dissuaded by the language barrier. There was a charge for getting the dead computer to recover, a service conducted over the phone, and one that we were grateful for. [In fact we wrote an article saying so - since removed - and one that should have left our investigative antennae quivering.]

Dell claimed zero liability as the Inspiron 1000 was out of warranty. Not true we said, your senior executives are jointly and severally liable and we will press our claim vigorously. (The warranty expiring does not discharge liability in the United Kingdom. But how about Nevada?)

Dell folded. It changed the battery (which had never worked when purchased), and the apparently dodgy hard drive too, and at no extra cost. (The power via the new battery lasts under an hour.) But, and this is what our complaint hinges on (couldn't resist the pun), the Inspiron 1000 problem still persisted, with the LCD screen going black, only this time threats of legal action aside, Dell wanted paying before doing any further tech stuff. And this time it wanted big bucks.

We were caught between a laptop and a faulty hinge. Closed down for a whole week - online - at least, TheBigRetort was left twiddling its fingers.

Until something rather curious came under our forensic scrutiny ...

Dell had returned the computer with one of its bolts missing. It was just a little plastic plug that was usually inserted on the left-hand side of the computer on its left hinge.

What we discovered

Surprisingly there were a number of complaints listed on the WorldWideWeb in regards to the Dell Inspiron 1000 'blank screen' problem - which centered around the left hand hinge of the LCD screen.

Coincidence or what?

The Dell Technical Support Denial

When confronted with our findings Dell technical support claimed that there were 'no (such) known issues' with the Inspiron 1000. In fact Dell repeatedly claimed that it had never heard of such a problem before. However, the Dell tech team did not comment on why the laptop had been returned with the missing left hinge plug, which is a coincidence. Instead, it did suggest that the problem could be any one of three things - and they would need paying for one or all of them.

But could it have been possible that the company knew about the problem but was ignoring it, due not only to a 'nice little earner' on unneeded 'repairs' but the mountain of liable claims that might follow the discovery (and this article)? Dell responded:

"After fully investigating the issues you have encountered, Dell has come to the following conclusion, there is no known issue with Inspiron 1000 as you claim. Dell is a company which strives to win with integrity and we are saddened by the fact that you felt that you we not provided the proper support. Once again we want to assure you of our total commitment to your satisfaction with our services and products, and apologize for not meeting up to your expectations on this occasion."

Not to be deterred we probed further, and asked Anu Meelu (Customer Relations/Legal team - UK & IRE Dell, Inc) what "investigation" it had undertaken?

Miss Meelu responded... "Your request of knowing (sic) about the investigation which I have gone by on (sic) the matter is a (sic) internal process, hence (sic) could give the give (sic) you the inside process. Your second question on Inspiron 1000 is (sic) little strange [rather like this response] to me as you claim you did so much of (sic) research on Insp 1000, as this is a stander (sic) step which is used to release flea power for all system irrespective of brand."

Ignore what will no doubt become infamously known as Dellspeak, or DellEnglish, or Dellgate, it is after all a world-wide brand, and we shall "give the give" (as Dell says). Let's instead concentrate on that 'flea power'? Just what is it?

"No it is not a Powerful Flea off you Cat," one online independent tech quips, "It is Power that is Left Between the Power Supply and Control Panel ( Power Button )." [Apparently there is still power in the computer when the power cord is switched off. After unplugging the computer and taking the battery out hold the Power Button in for 5 seconds to dispel it, switch it back on, and... pay Dell $80. ]

But what about that "investigation" we hear you ask... Actually, TheBigRetort did not understand much of what had been written by Ms Meelu. Indeed we wondered if our emails could have been intercepted by the wrong person. Dell responded via Ms Meelu, a legal "representative".

"I apologies (sic) for the error from my end. [Note she does not say which end.] Your request of knowing (sic) about the investigation which I have gone by (sic) on the matter is a (sic) internal process, hence could not (sic) give you the details of the internal process. But just to help you more (sic) on this , it is confirmed by the technical team that there is no such know (sic) issue mentioned with insp 1000 as you claim. Please let me know If I can be of anymore help to you on this matter."

So, is that clear?

Is it possible that English may 'not be your first language' we asked. After all Ms Meelu was offering a press statement on behalf of a computer conglomerate. She clarified (kinda?) But 'no such "know" issue mentioned'? A random sample of Dell customers, easily Googled, had this to say in their online posts:

Valerie19 posted as far back as 2005. "We got a Dell Inspiron 1000 laptop for my son at Christmas. The LCD display is no longer working. Nothing appears when it boots or runs. I can connect an external monitor and that looks fine."

Sound familiar?

Then there was... a poster styled Jakedeg who purchased his Inspiron in December 2004, and immediately had problems... he would turn the computer on and get 'dark screen'. He called Dell when the computer was still under warranty. But this did not assist matters.

"The tech support person I spoke to told me to try a couple of "quick fix" solutions that he gave me, which worked. But every so often when I would turn on the computer I would get a dark screen, so I would power it down and reboot like the tech support person told me to and when the computer would turn back on I could usually see the screen again."

Unfortunately the 'problem' occurred again. He then wrote, "Now I'm being told I need a new LCD, and in addition Dell is telling me that because the 90 day warranty expired, I have to pay out-of-pocket for a new LCD. I spoke with numerous reps and supervisors and expressed my dissatisfaction because not only is this a relatively new computer, but it is a problem that I started having and for which I called to get fixed when it was still under warranty, and tech support did not give me a permanent fix or offer to replace the LCD back in January, when it was still under warranty."

A case of now Dell fixes it now Dell don't?

Dell wanted $350 to repair the, err, 'problem' of a computer which Dell later claimed to TheBigRetort there were 'no known issues'.

No known issues?

Another poster, roger398, also wrote of the problem in that same year. "We bought the 1000 for our daughter last summer as a graduation present, and the LCD failed to work after only a few months at most. We have since been using an external monitor as well, but I have gotten the LCD to work twice after fiddling with connections under the screen's bezel (I did all this after the notebook was out of warranty). The screen worked fine for several hours just the other day after I checked connections, then I turned off the machine, closed the lid, reopened the lid, booted it, and the LCD failed."

Roger homed in on the problem. One that Dell claimed it had 'no known issues' with. (Or conveniently ignored.) "It's my impression that a physical connection might be to blame for my troubles, with opening and closing the lid causing a connection to loosen, causing the blank screen."

Roger thought that this might be "coincidence". It was what he then went on to say that contradicts Dell's claim further. And condemns it.

"I contacted Dell tech support and then the out-of-warranty department to see what it would cost for a fix and decided to look for alternatives (local computer guy?) to this high cost service. The bottom line is that I, too, am very disappointed with this product--and with Dell."
And Roger's not alone.

"Dell Inspiron 1000 Screen Problems" has become the new legend. (Don't believe us, Google it.)

Ben at experts-exchange.com. "I have a Dell Inspiron 1000 that would randomly shut down... I discovered that when you move the LCD screen even an inch, the laptop screen would shut down, and I would have to reboot. I turned off all of the Power Saving Features in XP, but it still does this. Bad LCD, or is there something else that is causing this?"

Indeed there is... only Dell refuses to acknowledge it.

Coolkatz321 in thetechlounge.com complained; "...I'm not sure if it needs to be replaced or if there's just a loose cable inside. Once the computer starts up, it's fine; however, if the monitor is moved, then screen goes black. It seems to be a fixable problem," Fixable if Dell gets its bucks. So is the Dell Inspiron blank screen problem solvable?

A person also posting in thetechlounge.com had found the same problem... and a solution. This is how he did it...

"Ardnek" reseated all of the video connections and then reassembled the laptop. But the LCD didn't turn on at all. However intrepid Ardnek took the laptop apart again. He reseated all of the connections. But to no avail. He decided to replace the flex video cable. Unfortunately Dell didn't (conveniently) carry the part. (Dell has the part if you want to send in your laptop - at a price of course.)

Not to be thwarted by Dell and its machinations, Ardnek, obviously a bit of a computer geek, in his words: 'reseated all of the connections, and uncrinked the flex video cable; however, this time I booted the computer back up before reassembling it and the screen came to life.'

After this he reassembled the computer forensically. 'Piece by piece' he checked at each stage whether the screen would still come on. "It worked until I reattached the metal plate that covers the motherboard, fan, etc. I noticed that this metal plate severely pinches the video flex cable as it comes up to go to the LCD and so I assumed that this poor design was responsible for the black outs when moving the screen."

Remarkably Ardnek had not only discovered where the problem lay - the one that Dell denies all knowledge of - but, more importantly, how to 'fix it'.

He took a pair of metal snips and cut out a tab for the cable to freely move through without being pinched and then covered the sharp metal edges with electrician's tape. And the laptop worked perfectly. He advised, "Fortunately for me, the short in the flex video cable was mild enough that simply straightening it out was enough to fix it. However, for others, you might have to replace this cable (if you can find one). I would recommend cutting out a tab in the metal cover even if you replace the cable so as to avoid future shorts. One final note: the plastic outer housing still requires the cable to be squished a bit as it goes to the LCD but it isn't nearly as severe and damaging as the metal plate."

When presented with these findings (a few amongst the many), Dell responded:
"You are free to take this up further (sic). I have already given you Dell (sic) final stance on the matter. Answering your question I have already mentioned in the mail before that (sic), it’s been confirmed by the technical team in Dell (sic) if we ever had such (sic) issue with the product in Question. If you want I can even send (sic) the same stance in writing to your physical address as if (sic) you want to take this up with Trading Standards they will need something in writing from Dell on this. If you wish to discuss the matter any further , please let me know the preferred time when we can talk on this matter as we don’t communicate through mails. [We wonder why?] Our stance on the issue remains (sic) same."

Dellspeak if ever.

(great-remortgage-offers.com is for sale here.)

Remortgage Remortgage Remortgage

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:19:00 +0000

THE UK BANKING SYSTEM, it seems fair to say, is in a little bit of a mess lately ("liquiditly" speaking of course).

Suddenly the base rate seems even baser...

Another 'suddenly'... it is none too easy to remortgage the mortgage. (Unless you click here.)

In fact, there is no longer a "Remortgage Lenders UK". Just the mortgage gap. And it is this ever-widening money gulf that many UK lenders apparently cannot bridge... without assistance at least.

Indeed it is fair to say that mortgage deals in the United Kingdom have not so much dried up - wowgolly - but all but disappeared.

But why? Well... that's the wowgolly of it all really.

It began in the Good-old-US-of-F&A with men from Britain too long without sleep to continue flogging their cheap UK remortgage deals back home. These men foolishly took on the bad debts of the American sub-prime borrower/lender and these money men, rich on the spoils of the housing boom over here, attempted to make our mortgage world theirs. Or was it theirs ours?

Never mind... In the end we were all in it together... and cheap mortgage deals will soon be hard to find.

UK lenders, having screamed 'remortgage with us' before Northernrockgate are now not only reluctant to lend to the average mortgage borrower but are also fearful of lending to each other too. And that's a 'Cash'-22 if ever... Finally, after many low-interest years of dire house-collapse warnings, the mortgage merrygoround has finally stopped. And if you ain't on it gone are the cut-rate UK remortgage deals. Gone to (even for those with the requisite equity) is the friendly smile of the remortgage rabbi. Because we are all 'mortgage rejects' and stamped on the deeds is 'not fit to borrow'.

But lo, a deal to end all woes, a three-year (low) fixed-rate, it may variously be repackaged as 'loanaiduk'
.
So how does it work?

It's quite simple really... Those lenders who invested heavily and badly in the US sub-prime markets have gone to the Bank of England and have begged the Old Lady for a handout... with our money? Actually something the FSA was keen to see take place last summer, prior to the NorthernRock debacle. In fact, had this happened then the bank would not have collapsed, and panic would have been avoided - almost.

But the £50 billion pound question: is why now if not then...

Let us not forget that many banks still continued to hide their losses and play chase the ace whilst privatising their profits and now nationalising their losses.

(Good stuff, uh? Banks will be allowed to swap hard-to-trade mortgage securities for Treasury bills. It simply gives the banks the liquidity they need to carry on trading and making even more money.)

However, in the past the Bank of England's Mervyn King has indicated that if the banks were to be bailed out that a penalty would be issued against them.

Yet the current proposal simply offers a commercial rate to the banks, the increase of which will be passed on to the man in the street no doubt.

In fact the move does not herald cheaper UK remortgages for the borrower... It simply gives the banks the liquidity they need to carry on trading and making even more money.

So will we soon be flocking for those super new deals?

If so get that mortgage now... or possibly at an increased rate later.

Meanwhile the bankers (place a "w" where you want) get a government bailout, and a bonus. And the taxpayer? Well, he gets to shoulder the risk.

Wowgolly indeed.
(the-rate.com is for sale)

Is TheBaseRate.Com a base rate con?

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:21:00 +0000

The Bank of England cut the Base Interest Rate by 0.25% to 5%. But does that mean that fixed-rate mortgage interest rates will follow the same downward spiral?

Although the Bank of England sets the 'Bank Rate' as it calls it, (it's generally known as 'thebaserate') it is the stepping stone on which the money markets operate for much but not all lending.

A number of lenders raised the rates on their fixed-rate deals by as much as 30 basis points (0.3%), but this may not be solely due to the fact that fixed rate loans are determined by the UK Government Bond (Gilts) Yield Curve and the Commercial Bank Swap Rate Yield Curve, known simply as the 'swap rate'.

With these in their armoury the money lenders can gaze into a rose-tinted crystal ball and see the economic road ahead... only it isn't so rosy this time. There is a lending crises. And it's official. But is thebaserate.com really a base rate con?

In fact, why we are in a money-pinch isn't as complex as the lenders will have us believe, and may not be due to the Swap Rates mentioned either.

The central banks, both here and in America, let the lending boom spiral out of control long ago. And the failing in the financial system here is not only due to sub-prime lending in US. (Sub-prime is the borrowing that comes with risk attached to it. Or more risk than usual.) At its peak some banks were lending at below the Bank of England base rate to attract business from private equity clients - and on new build properties that had questionable valuations attached.

Then there was that move to repackage debt in order to support sub-prime debt in America, and with it the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down. It was this 'risk-taking' that has caused the funding drought. The trouble is, before the credit squeeze finally came there were a lot of bucks to be made both at home and abroad, and it is this that has caused many banks to see-no hear-no speak-no evil.

In the words of John Stepek, deputy editor of Moneyweek.com, who has spent years covering the markets and breaking financial news, "The key question we should be asking is – what caused risk to be under priced for so long? And the answer is this – because everyone on Wall Street knew they were too big to fail. There was always the unwritten promise that the central banks of the world, lead by the US, would step in and save the financial sector from the slightest discomfort. If you still don’t believe me, then let me remind you of one of the most oft-repeated pieces of financial wisdom you’re likely to hear in the US and over here: "Don’t fight the Fed. In other words, whatever goes wrong, the Fed will fix it."

Stepek, and Monyweek, has certainly had a finger on the financial lending pulse for quite some time, and it is going to be hugely interesting to see how the present crises plays out.

He adds, "People complain – rightly in many cases - about an undeserving, violent underclass, who take no responsibility for their actions, and whose every misdeed is rewarded with another splurge of taxpayer money, which only encourages further bad behaviour. Well, we also have an undeserving overclass, who behave recklessly with our money, safe in the knowledge that the authorities will ensure their actions have no consequences – for them, at least."

It is this Overclass that we now need to focus our attentions, and as a result ensure that the few give back to the many... somewhere close to the Base Rate of course. [Click above for Stepek's in-depth and more learned view, and thebaserate.com on links for news-related items.]

Queen banished from coins

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:40:00 +0000

Are there plans to banish Queen Elizabeth II from new coins? Does Britain's small change herald change? Put simply, is the United Kingdom headed towards a republic?

Monetarists may think so... News of the first major design change in English coinage since decimalisation is barely moments away, and TheBigRetort has stumbled across some breaking news. The Queen's head may be banished from the front of the new coins.

The Royal Mint design has in the past carried the monarch's visage but is it possible that the seven newly-minted coins may change... radically?

There have been hints that 'a contemporary take on traditional heraldry reflecting the nation's rich history' may be found on the reverse of the coins, but what about the face?

In a radio interview given today, the Royal Mint let slip that the 86 million coins in circulation with the Queen's face, 'will be around for some time yet' - on old coins.

Up to now it was believed that the Queen's face would be kept on the front of all seven newly-minted coins, so what does the future hold the monarchy?

Eurostar price-fix-scandal

noreply@blogger.com (...) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:05:00 +0000

When it comes to offering 'best deal' holiday packages to Paris does Eurostar make the grade, or does it have tunnel vision? TheBigRetort discovers... la vérité.

The non-stop London to Paris Eurostar train tickets offer we purchased via the telephone were priced at £204. The 'best deal' we were assured for our short-break by Eurostar representatives. Guaranteed low prices? We later discovered that the same train journey sold to us was in fact advertised for £50 less. (See Eurostar retort below.)

In addition, our booking formed part of a 'package' deal, 1 adult and 1 child, (later joined by two additional adults at the tres agreable Hotel De L'Ocean in Rue Mayran, right in the heart of Paris and well worth a weekend. )

So, was it the best deal?

The reservation for our additional guest needed to be changed to one night instead of two. However, the amount returned to the credit card for the cancellation was not the same as the amount paid for the additional night. Who had pocketed the difference?

Eurostar informed us that the difference was a 'penalty' levied by the hotels for the, err, 'amendment'. Which seemed strange... Intrepid travellers to France, where we are known as Zee Big Red Tart, we had never encountered such a penalty. Neither had we experienced an 'additional' charge for a child residing in the same room. A charge of £23.52 (plus taxes) a night, which again we were informed was levied by the hotels.

In fact the French don't pay or charge such a levy. "No such penalty is charged," they informed us. Adding, "There is no extra guest charge for a 6-year old either," which was intriguing.

A case of less is more with Eurostar offers surely... So what did Eurostar have to say? Did it come clean and return our Euros? Or did Euro simply keep them?

When presented with our findings Eurostar's press office (e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y) wrote back: "Due to the complexity of your email I am just checking the final details with various people across the business. I hope to have a comprehensive answer for you within a day or so. Sincere apologies for the delay." Following which... more online delay followed.

But what 'complexity'? What 'fine detail'? And when would we receive that 'comprehensive answer'?

To recap...tickets booked via the telephone through Eurostar were more expensive than those offered online, the hotel did not levy charge for reducing a room from two nights to one, and French hotels do not usually charge for a child staying in the same room as adults. Eurostar does, blaims the French... and pockets the difference.

At least that's what we decided to put to Eurostar.... but not without incident.

The question was really a simple one. Based on what Eurostar claimed, later contradicted by the hotel, either we had highlighted it selling porkies or caught it going down the wrong track. Something TheBigRetort would have thought that the operator would have been keen to address.

Eurostar has a press office response time infinitely longer than its journey times to Paris... by foot, but press officer Tom Parker had previously informed us that he was eager to 'resolve the matter'. Be that as it may, it was almost as if there were invisible leaves covering the international train operator's muddy tracks. In fact a disembodied voice may have bellowed that there will be either a long delay or a cancellation... and there was

Parker claimed that accommodation, which was booked through eurostar.com, is actually provided by WWTE, a subsidiary of Expedia. It has 'a separate arrangement with the hotel concerned,' he wrote. And as a result Eurostar 'could not comment'.

Neither could Eurostar comment on the hotel's cancellation policy, in other words one night reduced to two. (Hotel De L'Ocean claimed it simply charged for one night with no penalty. )

Neither could it comment on the additional child levy that the hotel also claimed it did not add. And neither did it add up for Eurostar.

"We will however follow this matter up with WWTE and ensure that there were no improper charges made in error in this instance," Parker assured. Unfortunately as we did not hear further, we assume that Eurostar also felt that there were 'no improper charges made in error' - just, dare we say it, a slight of hand worthy of a card shark camped outside Kings Cross Station.

To be fair, Parker claimed that when he checked the online price of a return ticket on the same trains he found 'exactly' the same price. Although his search was conducted after our own, he could not explain the difference 'at this stage'. He never got back to us. TheBigRetort can only conclude that he could not explain the difference at any stage.

So, thinking of travelling with Eurostar on a 'best deal'? Arrête! Think twice.