Comments for XL Response to Ste Andreassen Blog http://xlresultsfoundation.wordpress.com Just another WordPress.com weblog Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:38:14 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Response to Claims by xlrf http://xlresultsfoundation.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/hello-world/#comment-8 xlrf Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:38:14 +0000 #comment-8 Dear Ste, Regarding your response: 1. Our response addresses each of the defamatory statements in your blog. Your choice to omit it indicates your intent of persisting with false claims rather than provide a balanced view. 2. Regarding where we get our figures: Moving the cursor over the date of each response gives the comment number. The last response on that blog gives comment number #33. Everyone has the right to remove responses that do not add to their blog, but to remove material responses that give balance - especially to blogs as defamatory in nature as yours - underlines your intention to persist with the defamation. 3. To claim that the post from Brett King is 100% genuine is libellous. The legal pressure being applied is from Brett King and his organisation. To have received a legal warning from him for a false posting, and then to claim it is genuine is extremely reckless. 4. Like most companies we are open - and expect - comment and criticism. We also expect the right to reply. We will not tolerate defamatory comments where the right to reply is taken away - especially in a place as public as the Internet. If you want to take a reasonable position in commenting on our organisation, you will take down the blog and post one which is sincere in seeking answers rather than designed to damage with false claims. If you choose to keep the current one posted, we will be taking legal action against you and your blog this week. Sincerely, XL Results Foundation Please reply to: members@resultsfoundation.com Dear Ste,

Regarding your response:

1. Our response addresses each of the defamatory statements in your blog. Your choice to omit it indicates your intent of persisting with false claims rather than provide a balanced view.

2. Regarding where we get our figures: Moving the cursor over the date of each response gives the comment number. The last response on that blog gives comment number #33. Everyone has the right to remove responses that do not add to their blog, but to remove material responses that give balance – especially to blogs as defamatory in nature as yours - underlines your intention to persist with the defamation.

3. To claim that the post from Brett King is 100% genuine is libellous. The legal pressure being applied is from Brett King and his organisation. To have received a legal warning from him for a false posting, and then to claim it is genuine is extremely reckless.

4. Like most companies we are open – and expect – comment and criticism. We also expect the right to reply. We will not tolerate defamatory comments where the right to reply is taken away – especially in a place as public as the Internet.

If you want to take a reasonable position in commenting on our organisation, you will take down the blog and post one which is sincere in seeking answers rather than designed to damage with false claims. If you choose to keep the current one posted, we will be taking legal action against you and your blog this week.

Sincerely, XL Results Foundation
Please reply to: members@resultsfoundation.com

]]> Comment on Response to Claims by David Harrington http://xlresultsfoundation.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/hello-world/#comment-7 David Harrington Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:21:44 +0000 #comment-7 I stand 100% behind Ste as he is a person I know to be honest and ethical I stand 100% behind Ste as he is a person I know to be honest and ethical

]]> Comment on Response to Claims by steandreassen http://xlresultsfoundation.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/hello-world/#comment-6 steandreassen Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:42:15 +0000 #comment-6 I don't know where they get their figures - presumably they are made up along with their claims of percentages to charity and "up to a 64 times increase in individual performance". Their rebuttal blog was submitted as a comment to this blog. As I was away when it was posted, they assumed I wasn't going to publish it and set up their own blog. I still have the comment in moderation, but I did delete several more copies of the same comment which they submitted. Perhaps they are including these duplicates in their figure. I actually received another comment which was anti-XL, which I haven't published because it contains inaccuracies. Their "belief" that all the comments are from the same person is difficult for me to prove either way. What I can say is that they all come from different email addresses and IP addresses, on different continents. The post from Brett King is 100% genuine. Legal pressure has been applied to have the posting removed. I am currently exploring the options available to me. The information contained in the post is 100% genuine. I don’t know where they get their figures – presumably they are made up along with their claims of percentages to charity and “up to a 64 times increase in individual performance”.

Their rebuttal blog was submitted as a comment to this blog. As I was away when it was posted, they assumed I wasn’t going to publish it and set up their own blog. I still have the comment in moderation, but I did delete several more copies of the same comment which they submitted. Perhaps they are including these duplicates in their figure.

I actually received another comment which was anti-XL, which I haven’t published because it contains inaccuracies.

Their “belief” that all the comments are from the same person is difficult for me to prove either way. What I can say is that they all come from different email addresses and IP addresses, on different continents.

The post from Brett King is 100% genuine. Legal pressure has been applied to have the posting removed. I am currently exploring the options available to me. The information contained in the post is 100% genuine.

]]>