 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.65.177.78
In Reply to: RE: I've addressed three of the 4 or 5 points... posted by Wellfed on July 24, 2007 at 10:00:22
Wellfed, you have not done yourself any favors in this thread. Kait fucked up, period. Whether the stuff he peddles "works" or not, putting that pic on the MD site without permission was wrong. I've read your posts and can not find a post of yours which acknowledges that.
Jesus and judgement day?! Man, that's offensive, and surely does not belong on an audio forum.
BTW - my BOZO ALERT post was a parody of Clark's idiotic batch of STALKER ALERT posts.
Follow Ups:
nt
I'm sorry to see that you've adopted Clark's bluster tactics. Its not becoming.
...but due to the fact that I genuinely like you, and that despite YOUR own bluster, look at my response to Len_'s WWJD posting.
Providing a link is technically inconvenient for me right at the moment.
Write down the post number for god's sake, even with just one browser window it's not complex.
Btw: Tabbed browsers are less resource hoging- Firefox for example allows the use of tabs so you have multiple pages without the large resource increase of running 2 instances of your browser. They'd be on the 'file' menu or equivalent, and can be opened by right clicking as well.
...if you think I would manually write down a URL and then manually type it in again to show you and Rick W where I comment on Geoff's faux pas with Len_'s picture, er.., Intellectual Property.
As for Firefox, or anything else for that matter, I've already told you, I don't have Administrator priveleges where I'm visiting.
Just look at my response to Len_'s WWJD posting. It's not much, but I do think it enough to contradict charges of dodging. Little people accuse Geoff Kait of fraud all the time without substantiation, is that somehow more ethical than Geoff's use of Len_'s picture, er.., Intellectual Property?
It's difficult for me to post a link right now, but follow Len_'s 'WWJD?' thread to see where I state that I don't defend Geoff's action. I think that's the thread anyway. The computer I'm using has low resources and is unable to display two browser windows simultaneously with any reliability.
That's the only other reference to the inability to post a link that I can find, and it says nothing about not having admin priviledges. Asserting that 'I already said that' is nothing if you can't substantiate it. The expectation for you to 'do your homework' with some substantiation, however, is entirely reasonable- The attitude you've taken "I don't feel like putting the effort in" just doesn't cut it if you want to be heard.
...but I really don't understand why you wouldn't just take my word for it. I really don't understand why we're even talking about the issue unless you're just trying to waste our time. I don't understand why you would want to waste our time unless you are a badman like rlw or something?
What do you want from me anyway mister?
;-)
An expectation I extend to all those who call my ethics into question in a public forum. If you're going to make personal accusations, you better have some justification that you can point to, otherwise you're just namecalling.
Just kidding. ;-)
What sort of justification you looking for? I didn't know they pulled the Cable Asylum post I alluded to. Do you think folks calling Geoff Kait a fraud or a charlatan should be required to justify their comments? I demand a public apology from each and every one of them. It better be sincere too. ;-)
I mean, it's a universal instinct. Ya aint gunna make headway against human nature Baddy.
I think a good bout of name calling and a couple pecks of unsubstantiated accusations makes this whole endevor reek of humanity.
:-)
endeavor :)
Please send me the links where you've asked questions that weren't answered or where you requested links.
s
nt
Copied below is my response to your recent post of the same vein:
-------------------------------------------------
Clark,
Your paranoia and/or ego is showing. I haven't known you for years. I can only recall a couple of past threads I've participated where you were involved.
You and Wellfed are perfectly complimentary creatures. Both of you resort to name calling, motive accusations, and empty one-liners (whose attempt at wit usually misses the mark) without actually talking about anything of merit. Lest you think I'm out on a limb, I'm not the only one that has posted this observation. "No ammo in his tube?" I hardly think you're one to talk.
What names did I call you? Or for that matter, that person (There's a name! "Mom, he called me a person!") who's been stalking me for years, with whose exertions you're apparently unacquainted.
Stalking is an activity practiced by someone who first targets his quarry, then steps into a discussion in which he has not otherwise participated, or very little, in order to insult another. You'll find, should you care to check, that I have several such, ah... admirers. And that their, ah... contributions have frequently been excised by the moderators. That's not "paranoia", that's fact. My own plea, often expressed, is that the posts be left -- as examples of stalker fury. And fury is exactly why I said there's no ammo in his tube, it's only pure spite.
So: Is it still "a vast majority"? (Not!...)
And are you proud of the fact that in your efforts to denigrate the provider of an item that didn't happen to work for you, you took a small what-should-have-been-private issue to the boards?
And are you surprised that many saw right through the charade?
Just wonderin'...
clark
to accuse you of being a "reviewer".
Your *underwoods* are refreshingly more than de rigeur bullet-pointed postulates on dingy items offered up from the audio-industial-complex.
They are, perhaps, peculiar ramblings coursing in always humane rivulets and pinballing between the technical and spiritual, from a *Clarksonian* unsuspended and often unproven reality (I don't mind) to the freedom of a pure literature. Keep it up, dammit.
Steve
7 out of those 10 posts on Shady or Outside, you might lack a bit of history regarding what Clark laughably terms "stalking". Seems to me that if anyone "bubbled up from the ether" its you.
Bubble up I shall.
There is some problem with your history tracker. I have posted WELL over a hundred times all over the place,just not in the last few years..
I used to be Brinkmann until the importer of Brinkmann Electronics asked me to change my nick. Maybe you can look there.
And i was just futzing about if ya cant tell... trying to pay Clark a sincere compliment. I value entertainment and a good twistyplot.
Steve
w
You guys have really dragged this discussion WAY off course.
You've accused me of being stalker, called me a "scamp," questioned my motives, et al. These are all ad hominems and logical fallacy. But I'm resigning myself to the conclusion that neither you or Wellfed care for the conventions of logic and are hell-bent on steering the discussion to fit your agendas.
I haven't followed your online activities and don't know (or care to know) who you are. But if it makes you feel more self-important to think of me as a stalker, so be it. Your declaration of having other "admirers" really is truly telling of your ego. Whatever floats your boat.
"And are you surprised that many saw right through the charade?"
Who are these "many" you refer to? I count you and Wellfed.
I don't care to support any majority claim as it's Bandwagon fallacy. But you're welcome to fixate on it if it suits you.
Geoff violated my intellectual property. How do you gloss over this and choose to attack me instead?
...my regular antagonist. Geez Luiz.
"If it makes you feel more self-important to think of me as a stalker, so be it." Again, missed by a long shot.
"Your declaration of having other 'admirers' really is truly telling of your ego." This remark shows you're immune to irony.
"Who are these 'many' you refer to? I count you and Wellfed." They were enumerated earlier.
"I don't care to support any majority claim as it's Bandwagon fallacy." Hoo boy! I might have this wrong, but weren't you the first (forget Hillary) to utter the phrase, "vast majority"? By golly, you were! This is just like when you accused me of "disctioary" "defining" and I had done no such thing, the word was all yours.
"Geoff violated my intellectual property." I see the "knowingly" has now been omitted; change noted.
"How do you gloss over this and choose to attack me instead?" Never glossed, simply called it a petty mistake for which you needn't have gone public and have *continued the discussion* once it became apparent there were geoff bashers clinging to you.
clark
My apologies if the stalker comment was not directed at me. You used ambiguous pronouns. In discussions where Wellfed was talking about me ("You'd think Geoff Kait gave len_ a snuggy or something"), you responded to his post with the following: "Naw, he's just a stalker. Been nipping and yapping at me for years. No ammo in his tube, tho. nt". I now understand you weren't referring to me, but hopefully you can see why I thought it was.
I did make the majority statement earlier and regret doing so. I am not perfect and definitely not immune from logical fallacy (especially when I'm debating with people who refuse to abide by the rules of logical engagement). The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies in order to perpetuate meaningful and reasonable discussion. You don't seem to care. That's fine. Rhetorical arguments (e.g. your pithy one-liners) can be fun. Not very useful, but fun. And maybe fun is all you're trying to get out of this.
I never used the word "knowingly" and "violated" in conjunction. I did say he knowingly took intellectual property (photo) that wasn't his. Can we get off this semantic merry-go-round?
I don't think what Geoff did was a petty mistake. It's your right to hold that opinion. I value intellectual property rights and ethics. Going public yielded results. It also makes people aware of this situation. What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?
That any "bashers" latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility. Neither is it my burden that "fanboys" latched on. You guys are all mature, sentient beings (or at least you should be). Shoulder your own accountability, please.
...denied he used the "bandwagon" argument (although you had), mistook a thread section topped by stalker Rick W for his own, dropped the word "knowingly" after being chided about it (but that's OK) etc. etc. and then has the nerve to write, "The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies."
Whew!
And then, "What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?" Nothing! But the proper and polite form, sir, is to inform him of your concern privately; *then* if he doesn't respond, you air the laundry.
Your one correct statement is, "That any 'bashers' latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility." But you can see surely how you enabled them.
clark
"But the proper and polite form, sir, is to inform him of your concern privately; *then* if he doesn't respond, you air the laundry."
I won't lie. I have no motivation to be polite with Geoff. This is a man who infringed on my IP. This is a man who unashamedly took my photo from my negative review of his product, making a smug comment about the photo quality and then secretly put it on his commercial website. This is a man who publicly called me a liar not too long ago when I said something negative about his merchandise, openly declaring I actually never owned his products and that I was fabricating my remarks. This is a sophomoric man inclined to belittle customers who speak poorly of his products.
This is the man you defend and ask I be polite with. Not that the truth isn't impolite ....
nt
You're selective indignation over unethical behavior strikes me as adolescent and hypocritical. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.
It is a personal opinion. It's apparently one you disagree with. Normally, people don't throw a tantrum over these types of disagreements.
nt
I don't know. The whole time, you've been calling me names, making disparaging remarks about my character, and brow-beating a dead horse. I suppose one man's complaint is another man's tantrum/whine. For certain, you've made it perfectly clear you think my complaint has been a whine from post #1.
It served as a tirade against MD. Had you done the proper thing and notified MD via e-mail, this might never have arisen. But, no: you had to go public first.
Had Geoff not responded, *then* this would have been the next step.
clark
I have no problem with your opinion that my complaint was petty. I disagree. Geoff took my intellectual property without permission (some would define this as stealing) and used it for his own gain. I made this public knowledge as I think people should be aware of this. He took my photo from my negative review of his product and spun the situation to his advantage, leading me to reiterate how poor I think his products are.
Call me petty. To date, you've not reprimanded Geoff. Some could construe this as tacit approval of Geoff's actions.
I was quick to jump in and pretty much say that his use of your picture may well reveal deeper shady business practices on the part of GF. So clearly I'm no GF fanboy... but, Clark makes a lot of sense in his point about contacting GF privately and then going public if there's no satisfactory response. It also appears that in saying so, he was agreeing that it was wrong for GF to take and use the photo and supported the idea of a public outing if the situation weren't remedied.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
I did send an email.
I'm not sure who benefits (except Geoff) if we never knew about this situation. I've already admitted on a few previous occasions that my purpose wasn't just to right the wrong, but also to inform people about it.
FWIW, this is not the first time someone has infringed on my intellectual property. Historical experience did factor in my decision on how to respond in these scenarios. Fortunately, I did not have to resort to more severe measures such as contacting ISPs.
Is yer postition?
Mom was right again!
Len tried to right a wrong wrongly.
So we have one right and two wrongs. Now, logically, if two wrongs make a right, then we have
(right + (wrong+wrong)) = (right + right).
Now suppose two rights make a wrong as any right thinking person might well suppose. So then
(right + right) = wrong.
Now we have arrived happily at your position with both oars in the water! Len is definitely wrong. But ONLY IF two wrongs make a right.
Et Voila.
But your very first constant is wrong, so I declare your beautiful formula invalid!
d
...but why wasn't everyone so lucky?
m
You're a really big crybaby Len_. This thread really SHOULD have gone to Whiner's Woad.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
