You have blackballed Mr. Sasek personally, and Lucent and Livingston
corporately.
Fine.
The rest of the user community can do what they want with this information.
My affiliation with Livingston is ONLY as a customer Jack, and if you think
that I've not had my matches with Livingston, including their head honchos,
you can - but you'd once again be wrong. Go ask Steve - oops, you blackballed
them, so I doubt he'll talk to you now...
Simply put, we use their product for one reason and one only - it works
*BETTER THAN ANY OTHER COMPARABLE DEVICE WE HAVE TESTED IN BOTH ANALOG AND
PCM FORMATS*.
We have in fact tested virtually all of them.
If you want to read "conspiracy theories" into my activities, you can do so.
That's COMPLETELY false, but heh, if you don't know that I act on my own
and voice my own opinions, and am nobody's "eunich" or anything else for
that matter by now, you really are a lot more stupid than I had originally
thought.
I've been at this business for more than 10 years, and in the electronic
communications business before your petty little "Boardwatch" was born
(1981 if you want to be precise). I've seen tin pot dictators come and go,
including Fight-O-Net, your Rag, and countless others pontificating about
this and that.
What I have *NEVER* done, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise, is
snivel around behind people's backs. If I think you're a jackass, I'll tell
you straight up to your face. In public. On *YOUR* podium. If you don't
know that about me, then you know nothing at all. I've made no attempt to
hide my email on this topic - quite to the contrary, as I've expanded the
scope of the discussion to include portmaster-users. Further, I've not
attempted to take ANY PART of this discussion private. On the contrary -
I want the bright white light of truth on you in full public view.
As to YOUR claim that Livingston has prevented you from posting there, it
certainly looks like bullshit to me. If you CCd the messages it would show
up in the headers REGARDLESS OF WHETHER LIVINGSTON LET IT THROUGH. I've
archived ALL of your brown spew in this thread, and Jack, the truth is that
not once has "portmaster-users@livingston.com" shown up in the headers of
your messages - in either the "to" or "cc" lines.
If you want to accuse Sasek or Livingston of censoring your messages, be
careful. I'm an outside observer, don't work for them, and *DO* have all
of your messages on this archived and logged. I'll be more than happy to
produce them in court and swear on the Bible that those logs are true and
correct - and Jack, nowhere does it appear that you've tried to post to
Livingston's list. If you don't know how to use your email client the
problem isn't Lucent's.
My public nature with this stuff has gotten me maligned over the years.
So be it. I'm darn proud of my professional accomplishments and credentials,
I'm damn tough to please, and I piss people off regularly who try to take
cheap shots at those who don't deserve it - or who try to mislead and rip
people off.
That's just my professional reputation and way of operating. Don't like it?
Too damn bad. You're stuck with it as long as the Internet is a free
marketplace; and again, if you don't know that by now, you really don't
know *Jack*.
You're a public figure Rickard, and what you do online and off, including
who you screw and try to, both in your bedroom and in your business, is fair
game. Don't like it? Tough - get the hell out of *your own* kitchen if you
don't like the heat that you brought upon yourself.
You don't have to worry about blackballing me - after this I'd never give
what I believe is a rotten yellow organization a nickel of my hard-earned
money anyway. Consider that a formal request to get me off your spam
e-mailing list and distribution of your rag, and formal notice that I'll
bounce a nice GIF file of my middle finger back at you if you spam my email
again - one reply for each piece.
I don't give two spits whether Lucent sues your pants off or not, as I have
no stake in this issue. Frankly, until I see the actual *finished* article,
instead of your hyped and misleading press release, I won't have an opinion
on that. The "press release", however was IMHO precisely that - misleading,
full of hype, and full of simply baseless claims - due to your choice not to
release the data to substantiate what you said you found.
Now is the data in the magazine? Who knows. We all will - eventually.
If its not there then you should be pilloried, drawn, quartered, and hung
in the court of public opinion. If it is then the facts will speak for
themselves.
But the other problem is far more serious. Blackballing someone because
they disagreed with you, even vehemently so, is reprehensible. Its probably
not actionable (just like you have absolutely no right to invade my
property - such as my mail server - or Lucent's property - like their
mailing list), as your magazine and convention is a private function which
you host and set the rules for.
But it is ethically bankrupt. Worse, it smells bad, and further leads me
to believe that you *DO* have something hide.
Those who have nothing to hide don't mind a debate - even an acrimonious
one - and produce their evidence when challenged. Those who DO have something
to hide try to refuse a voice to their opponents.
You've now had several people in this debate do exactly that - they've
posted their statistics. Care to argue with them? No? Gee, why not?
They don't jive with your claims, by the way... so much for statistical
correlation.
And, of course, you've said you don't care whether their statistics
correlate with yours. Is that because all that matters is selling
magazines and advertising space?
Unfortunately for you, Jack, Lucent has plenty of ways to get their voice
heard. I have already suggested a mailing to their customer base. Now,
with you admitting that you have blackballed Lucent/Livingston, I reiterate
my call for them to do exactly that - and point out to all those customers
that you have done precisely this. I also urge them to excerpt your letter
posted here, under "fair use", in which you admit this action.
Let the marketplace decide if your actions have merit.
Isn't that what you were trying to say about Spam and the K56Flex/X2 issue?
Or do your rules only apply to you?
On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 02:01:38PM -0700, Jack Rickard wrote:
> It is quite true Karl. As you should have seen from my reply to Joe's
> e-mail in portmaster-users. It would APPEAR at this point, and we're still
> looking at it to determine for sure, but it would APPEAR that Livingston
> has blocked the reply, and it never appeared in PORTMASTER-USERS. I have
> not tried to do this AT ALL privately, and in fact did it quite publicly.
> But the message appears to have been blocked.
>
> If it turns out to be so, and you would like to see it in it's entirety, I
> will post it here in ISP-CEO for everyone's perusal.
>
> We don't do things in the dark. But that apparently does not extend to
> your and Livingston's activities. I'm shocked if this is the case, but a
> pattern is emerging that somewhat precludes "surprise". If in fact,
> Livingston blocked my reply directly to portmaster-users mailing list,
> where Mr. Sasek's original defamatory attack appeared, we DO have a very
> different kettle of fish Karl, and you may be quite right as to the
> participation of lawyers.
>
> We actually have a very good legal team. If I had to count all the times
> we've been threatened with legal action over the years, I don't even know
> what the total would be. I can tell you we've never had to back away from
> anything we've put in print. And you and Livinston would be absolutely
> slaughtered on this one. There are occasionally some fine lines. This
> isn't one of them.
>
> On the other hand, making a public accusation of malfeasance and fraud in a
> mailing list, and then refusing to post the maligned's response in the same
> venue, has a very deplorable set of ethics. If you are allying yourself
> with this position, you fail the woof test in public Karl. You're not only
> dishonest, but cowardly. I have no further correspondence for your
> consideration.
>
>
> You may retrieve my FULL reply to Mr. Sasek's post, from Mr. Sasek
> directly. And I think you should. I think HE or YOU should post it both to
> portmaster-users and here. It was intended as a copy of a message sent to
> portmaster-user@livingston.com and is quite lengthy. It absolutely does
> preclude any financial relationship between Livingston and Boardwatch in
> the future. This is really quite simple. If they believe we establish
> editorial positions based on financial support from their competitors, I
> cannot in good faith accept their money for ANYTHING from that moment
> forward. It doesn't matter if their perception is true or not. It is
> sufficient for it to be their perception. But it would appear the reply
> never quite made it into portmaster-users. What happened to it Karl? Joe?
>
>
> Now I want to ask you all a question on credibility. I have danced back
> and forth between private mail and public mail, trying to follow the wishes
> of whomever I am speaking to at the moment. With one gent from Skynet, he
> made a bit of an attack in public, then responded privately, and I
> apparently flipped it back into the list. I'm still not clear if this was
> an accident or on purpose, but I still feel it was appropriate. YOU Mr.
> Denninger, initiated both a public and private correspondence, almost
> unfollowable as to which was which, and then flipped the entire private
> correspondence out into a public forum.
I've never initiated private correspondance over this matter - you're lying.
> I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS. It can be private, it can be public, or it can
> be both. I don't say anything to you or anybody else in the dark that I
> don't care to have ANYONE read. It doesn't mean the same thing to me as it
> does you. I REALLY don't care. We don't have any secrets here. But it IS
> a little confusing. Settle on something. And PUBLIC is my PREFERENCE. I
> will ONLY go private at YOUR behest. It will NEVER be at MINE.
This is why you took a public message of mine and replied to it privately,
including some choice language in there as well, right?
> But as I understand it, Mr. Sasek made a deplorable accusation against the
> credibility of Boardwatch Magazine, in a public forum to all ISP's that
> use Livingston equipment - portmaster-users@livingston.com. When I
> responded to it, as best I can tell, he blackholed the message and it NEVER
> DID GET OUT on Portmaster Users. And now YOU have the gall to come into
> THIS public conference, and accuse ME of hiding it? Get the message from
> Joe Sasek and post it here yourself. HE apparently doesn't WANT it made
> public. I DO.
>
> And YOU don't measure up to dirty bathwater Karl Denninger. No ethics. No
> honor. Not a man. A ball-less Livingston Eunuch.
>
> Jack Rickard
Oh boy, more personal attacks - now we're down to calling me ball-less and a
Livingston Eunuch besides. I'm impressed - NOT!
It would appear that's all you have left.
By the way, I've not had one piece of email deriding my point of view on
this - but I've had several private "atta boys, go get 'em" in response....
---- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>