BTW my k56Flex users average 44-46K with a very nice spike at 50K and we
are in what is considered "the sticks" with VERY bad telco lines! Several
users are 8 miles out from the CO and get 50K EACH AND EVERY CALL. Must
be the "crap" Livingstons we use.
Just my 2 cents worth...
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Vozza voice: 973.208.1339
NetRom Internet Services fax: 973.208.0942
john@netrom.com data: 973.208.7777
http://www.netrom.com data: 973.728.1274
data: 973.835.1111
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Ok, so its true.
>
> 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/>
>
-
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/>