Uploaded May 2012 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Update: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.
This is the final part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole", in which the pseudo-scientific nonsense of this "documentary" is wrapped up with an attempt to drag the scientific community down to the same level as the producers of this movie... An attempt that fails dismally.
Update: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.
This is the final part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole", in which the pseudo-scientific nonsense of this "documentary" is wrapped up with an attempt to drag the scientific community down to the same level as the producers of this movie... An attempt that fails dismally.
