Unity’s post on Nikkogen today reminded me of Tim Worstall’s comments a month or so ago. At the time, I noted the claims of zero-emissions and almost zero ongoing running costs; emitted a brief “hurumph!” and promptly forgot about it. Even I, challenged as I am when it comes to science (and in particular, physics) can recall sufficient facts from my “O” level physics of thirty years ago to realise that you don’t get owt for nowt – there is always, always energy loss. That is; you get out somewhat less than you put in. Unless Nikkogen have managed to change the laws of physics and no one noticed.
Following spamming Tim’s blog, Ray Jenkins (the business development manager, apparently), now takes issue with Unity:
Please can you remove any reference to Nikkogen from your website/blog. The information on your website received automated or not is incorrect and any reference to our company as being a fraud is incorrect.
You may wish to contact Tim Worstall – who will I’m sure confirm that the information he provided via his website/blog was incorrect.
You have a week to remove any reference to our company.
Oh, dear… As Unity pointed out, Mr Jenkins really doesn’t understand this medium one iota. Firstly, the matter of spamming Tim’s blog (not done, old bean, bad form) and now the demands for a removal of all reference to the company from The Ministry of Truth. Incidentally, Mr Jenkins is wrong when he claims that Mr Worstall has withdrawn his earlier comments. Tim has said nothing of the sort. Indeed, he reasserts his skepticism.
The laws of libel are clear enough and skepticism is not libel – neither is pointing out the laws of thermodynamics. Removal of references is just not something you can demand, nor enforce. And, pointedly, there is another phenomenon, one that is developing as you read; the viral nature of the Internet. How will Mr Jenkins stop more and more blogs that care to write about the story and as a consequence, include references (and an underlying skepticism) of Nikkogen? The land of Blog may just prove to be a hydra in waiting for the unwary.
All of this reminds me of a driving school I once worked for. The contract I signed when I joined the school was inherently unfair. Indeed, so unfair was it, that in all likelihood it was in breach of the unfair contract terms act. Not that I was too concerned, I knew that the terms were unenforceable. So, upon terminating it and striking out on my own, I was faced with a predictable solicitors’ letter demanding a payment of a little under £1000. When rebutted with the “put up or shut up” defence, the proprietor had no option but to go away quietly. A court case where winning was by no means certain would have cost more than the claimed amount, it would have tarnished further his already seedy reputation and the contract contained a clear unfair restriction on trade clause.
When people start to shout about bringing in their brief over something that really shouldn’t involve solicitors anyway, over something that is, frankly, perfectly reasonable to everyone else watching events unfold, then I am skeptical of the motives of the person crying “foul”. All too frequently the threat of legal action at an early stage is the hallmark of the charlatan. All too frequently my underlying suspicions about such have been proven accurate. The driving school proprietor went bust as one instructor after another left and gave his solicitors’ letters the well deserved two-finger salute.
Is Nikkogen of the same ilk, I wonder?