| [News] Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 16-May-2003 03:12 GMT by Some Farker (Edited on 2003-05-16 07:51:51 GMT by Christian Kemp) | 265 comments
View flat
View list | |
(via amiga.org) Amiga, Inc's office equipment is being auctioned off by a 3rd party auction company in Washington State. What does this portend? From the 2nd site:
"AMIGA INC
10AM - TUESDAY - JUNE 17
Preview 8-10am, Tuesday, June 17
34935 SE Douglas St, Suite 210
Snoqualmie, WA
Dot com servers, pc's, printers & late model furniture"
|
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 251 of 265 | ANN.lu |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 252 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Don Cox on 18-May-2003 09:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 240 (Genesi Cheerleader):
"Humm... Yes I checked that one out. Any intermediate user of photoshop/gimp etc would be able to tell you how many layers were present - let alone that it was a very amateurish job."
That would be the case if Garry Hare had knocked them up himself in a hurry before the show (or got an assistant to do so). I don't think the quality of production of the card(s) tells us anything. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 253 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 18-May-2003 13:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 252 (Don Cox):
i think the guy ment the scan was faked as in the text was added as layers over business card image. it aint easy to tell either way from that scan |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 254 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by T_Bone on 18-May-2003 15:43 GMT | In reply to Comment 253 (Anonymous):
> i think the guy ment the scan was faked as in the text was added as layers over
> business card image. it aint easy to tell either way from that scan
It'll be easy enough to tell at AmiWest where Wayne will have the card. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 255 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Another Concerned User on 18-May-2003 20:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 209 (Sir Lancelot Du Lac):
"Not at all, but those claiming to have "proof" should PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Which was the whole point of my post, nothing more. If you have proof, show it, if you don't, then shut up."
Well said. I've seen nothing conclusive at all.
There are precicely two references to Amiga on wa.gov: one about disability access software, and the other appears to be its Spanish translation. Maybe they don't keep judgements older than the 14-day "recent opinions" page, in which case, fair enough (I'm in the UK, and I'm buggered if I'm going to run up a transatlantic phone bill just for this). But that's the sort of proof I'm looking for.
Even something officially linking Inception and Amiga - other than the press releases about AInc moving into IGLLC's building in the first place - would do.
At the very least, someone I know and trust confirming it all.
Like "Sir Lancelot", I'm not trying to deny the truth: if this stuff's true, then it's true. It's not the end of the world.
But I'd like to see some hard evidence, beyond an auction advert that doesn't really prove anything, the supposed text of alleged court documents, and a bunch of rumours, rants, and removed ANN posts. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 256 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Sir Lancelot Du Lac on 19-May-2003 14:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 218 (Emeric SH):
> Can't remember your name popping up when Amiga Inc stated things
> which later proved to be fake. Can't remember you demanded PROOF.
> Can't remember your name when Amiga Inc intentionally named and
> accused competing companies.
I expected just as much proof from Amiga Inc. on that subject as I expect from you on this subject. The last thing I remember was Amiga Inc. stating that their lawyers told them to shut up about it and they did.
> May I ask where the hell you were in 2001 August? And at the "MOS
> is based on sources" affair? And in various other cases, which list
> is not only long but ever growing at every Ray Akey or Fleecy Moss
> comment?
I am usually in lurker mode, I rarely pop into the discussion unless I feel I can contribute to the discussion. I don't recall any of "the faithful" claiming to have proof on the "sources affair", which is why it was not worth my time to say put-up or shut-up. If you note, I have not even commented on this subject until so many people have claimed to have PROOF IN THEIR HANDS.
As I said before, do not try to convince me of something unless YOU'RE willing to go the extra mile to give me the proof. Do not tell me to get off my lazy ass and go find the proof, get off your lazy ass and email it to me, that is my correct email address posted above. If you are not even willing to do that, than please shut the hell up about it. I will gladly wait for Amiga Inc. going bust to be the proof that they are not going to survive. If you want me to believe it before they go bust, then YOU have to do a little extra work. If you don't care, then stop acting like you do by telling me to go find the evidence. As I said before, Amiga is more or less nostalgia for me, if OS4 comes out, I'll take a look at it an maybe even get it, if it doesn't, oh well, no biggie, it's not like I haven't already lived without it being my primary PC for over 5 years now.
@Emeric SH
Please note, I know your post did not tell me to go find the proof, that last bit is a note to all those who have, which I ca not remember if you happen to be one of those individuals who has said "go find the proof".
@Dammy
You keep claiming that I do not find Rich Woods evidence to be good enough, this is not true. I have never seen his evidence because he wants more information than I am willing to give to an individual that I do not know. If you or he want me to believe his evidence, than one of you has to email it to me, that is my correct email address above. If you do not want to do that, then shut the hell up about me not believing evidence that YOUR not willing to send. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 257 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by dammy on 19-May-2003 16:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 256 (Sir Lancelot Du Lac):
> Dammy
> You keep claiming that I do not find Rich Woods evidence to be good enough,
> this is not true. I have never seen his evidence because he wants more
> information than I am willing to give to an individual that I do not know. If
> you or he want me to believe his evidence, than one of you has to email it to
> me, that is my correct email address above. If you do not want to do that,
> then shut the hell up about me not believing evidence that YOUR not willing to > send.
Go grow up! Evidence is there, you don't like what Rich requires to see it, go get it yourself. I can not help it you can't get your own little way on this one, stop whining about it not being on your terms. Go spend the money on getting court copies. If your not willing to do that, your not willing to give Rich your snailmail address, you just want to bitch and that is the entire truth of your posts. You just want to bitch since the evidence is quiet clear, Amiga Inc is in legal trouble.
BTW, I just got another email from Julie at the auction house, she has corrected herself, it's Amiga Inc's landlord who is seller, not Amiga Inc. Wonder how that could be, if it's on their web page, it's true right? Funny their address that they were evicted from is still there. Even more funny that their now former landlord is selling off their stuff to reclain what is probably an excess of a year's worth of back rent.
You Amiga Inc fanboys are a funny lot, all you want to do is bitch about reality and heap praise on fantasy statements by your cult leaders.
Dammy |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 258 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Sir Lancelot Du Lac on 19-May-2003 17:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 257 (dammy):
> Go grow up! Evidence is there, you don't like what Rich requires to
> see it, go get it yourself. I can not help it you can't get your own
> little way on this one, stop whining about it not being on your terms.
> Go spend the money on getting court copies. If your not willing to do
> that, your not willing to give Rich your snailmail address, you just
> want to bitch and that is the entire truth of your posts. You just
> want to bitch since the evidence is quiet clear, Amiga Inc is in
> legal trouble.
I'm not the one trying to PROVE anything, you are. If you (or Rich) really want to PROVE it then YOU need to PROVIDE the PROOF, NO STRINGS ATTACHED
[snip]
> You Amiga Inc fanboys are a funny lot, all you want to do is bitch
> about reality and heap praise on fantasy statements by your cult
> leaders.
>
> Dammy
You anti-Amiga Inc fanboys are even funnier, you obviously don't know how to read, if you did, you wouldn't call me an Amiga Inc fanboy. Second, you sound like a child, yelling, "I have so much proof, I have so much proof but I refuse to show it to you unless you do what I want". You actually think most of us lust after Amiga Inc. when most of us only care about Amiga OS. And you have so much blind hatred for Amiga Inc. that when someone actually questions you, they are immediately an Amiga Inc. "fanboy."
You did however have some good advice in your post, if you in fact apply it to yourself, go re-read your first three words posted and try to attain the level of mentality before posting again Dammy. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 259 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by samface on 20-May-2003 10:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 141 (T_Bone):
>> Hint: Two already settled cases (as in everything wrong has been made right
>> and according to the law,
>
>What on earth are you talking about? Amiga most certainly has not settled
>these claims. Amiga owes the landlord, still. Amiga owes the employees, still,
>and Amiga has still not pait their state sales tax. Just like I said.
STATUS: RELEASED
Care to explain to me what that means?
>That's not an accusation. that's Publicly verifiable fact. it's public record,
>simply passed on to you. The fact you see it as an "Accusation" tells me
>you're simply arguing against it because you don't like it. Like it or not,
>that's the way it is.
No, that's how you have interpreted it. Are you a a proffesional lawyer or just a hobbyist?
>> does not proove any of your theories.
>
>*What theories*??? I said nothing more than what public record states.
No, you made your own conclusions based on your own interpretations. The public records does NOT state Amiga Inc.'s financial status.
>> The *only* thing this prooves is that these court cases exist which is not
>> in direct relation to your theory about them beeing broke.
>
>You're accusing Amiga of breaking the LAW then? Because if they ARN'T broke,
>then they are ILLEGALLY violating the order of the courts who told them to
>pay! So far you've been the only one who's just accused them of wrongdoing, I
>only accused them of being broke.
Now you are jumping into conclusions again. When are you going to learn?
>Where's your proof they are VIOLATING COURT ORDER because they ARNT BROKE?
>that's a pretty serious accusation there.
I am NOT accusing anyone of anything, period. All I ever did was trying to bring some kind of objectivity in all this. What I mean by objectivity is NOT making any conclusions at all. All you've seen is court case records where the court decissions is not even specified besides the last current activity. You really shouldn't assume anything out of so little information.
>> Just because a pie made of Apples tastes great, it doesn't neccessarily have
>> to mean that a pie made out of Pears would taste just as great. You need
>> something more, something that would link these events with each other in
>> order to prove your theory.
>
>WHAT THEORY? They told the court they were broke. You say they arn't. You are
>calling them liars. I think it's time you start to dig up proof since you are
>the one accusing them of wrongdoing.
More assumptions...
>I didn't accuse them of anything.
And now you contradict yourself.
Quote: "I only accused them of being broke" |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 260 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by dammy on 22-May-2003 03:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 259 (samface):
>In Reply to Comment 141:
>>> Hint: Two already settled cases (as in everything wrong has been made right
>>> and according to the law,
>>
>>What on earth are you talking about? Amiga most certainly has not settled
>>these claims. Amiga owes the landlord, still. Amiga owes the employees, still,
>>and Amiga has still not pait their state sales tax. Just like I said.
>STATUS: RELEASED
>Care to explain to me what that means?
No longer in the court system.
>>That's not an accusation. that's Publicly verifiable fact. it's public record,
>>simply passed on to you. The fact you see it as an "Accusation" tells me
>>you're simply arguing against it because you don't like it. Like it or not,
>>that's the way it is.
> No, that's how you have interpreted it. Are you a a proffesional lawyer or
> just a hobbyist?
Samface, we now know for a fact that the seller of the auction is the landlord and not Amiga Inc. Wanna take a guess on how the landlord can legally sell off Amiga Inc's property?
>>> does not proove any of your theories.
>>
>>*What theories*??? I said nothing more than what public record states.
> No, you made your own conclusions based on your own interpretations. The
> public records does NOT state Amiga Inc.'s financial status.
True, it just shows what Amiga Inc has failed to pay off and were taken to court by those who Amiga Inc owes a debt to.
>>> The *only* thing this prooves is that these court cases exist which is not
>>> in direct relation to your theory about them beeing broke.
>>
>>You're accusing Amiga of breaking the LAW then? Because if they ARN'T broke,
>>then they are ILLEGALLY violating the order of the courts who told them to
>>pay! So far you've been the only one who's just accused them of wrongdoing, I
>>only accused them of being broke.
>Now you are jumping into conclusions again. When are you going to learn?
No jumping, Amiga Inc has failed to pay off their debts. Those who are owed mony by Amiga Inc have taken the final step by going to court for court ordered relief.
>>Where's your proof they are VIOLATING COURT ORDER because they ARNT BROKE?
>>that's a pretty serious accusation there.
> I am NOT accusing anyone of anything, period. All I ever did was trying to
> bring some kind of objectivity in all this. What I mean by objectivity is NOT > making any conclusions at all. All you've seen is court case records where the > court decissions is not even specified besides the last current activity. You > really shouldn't assume anything out of so little information.
Truism. However, watching Amiga Inc property being hauled out by the landlord for auction does give one the firm evidence that judgement has been made against Amiga Inc in the courts, which they have not paid. Hence the confiscation of Amiga Inc's property by the landlord.
>>> Just because a pie made of Apples tastes great, it doesn't neccessarily have
>>> to mean that a pie made out of Pears would taste just as great. You need
>>> something more, something that would link these events with each other in
>>> order to prove your theory.
>
>>WHAT THEORY? They told the court they were broke. You say they arn't. You are
>>calling them liars. I think it's time you start to dig up proof since you are
>>the one accusing them of wrongdoing.
> More assumptions...
So is Amiga Inc broke?
>>I didn't accuse them of anything.
>And now you contradict yourself.
>Quote: "I only accused them of being broke"
Actually, I believe he is accusing YOU of calling Amiga Inc, in a back handed way, liars. So is Amiga Inc broke?
Dammy |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 261 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 22-May-2003 05:11 GMT | In reply to Comment 114 (T_Bone):
Posted by T_Bone (24.211.172.11) on 16-May-2003 13:02:11
In Reply to Comment 112:
Jesus Samface, just Email Rich Woods. I believe you're deliberately avoiding the proof. He will give you access to the documents. "Travel to the US" indeed.
As for the rest of us, why should WE shut up about it just because YOU haven't seen the proof? WE have.
You have every opportunity to see for yourself. If you fail to, it's because you deliberately refuse to.
=------------------
Sammy had access to the merlancia.us/thendic-amiga password protected directory for MONTHS.
I asked Ray Akey whom in Amiga he was pasing the documentation to - he refused to answer. I cut his access and Sammy's access. I asked upon "signing up" the information was not to be passed around.
So Sammy and Ray have to ask billyboy what is happening. Obviously they hed to go to my web site(s) to find the info on what was REALLY happening (official court records)
---------------
Same with the "Merlancia Team" - they'll be taken down relatively shortly. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 262 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 22-May-2003 05:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 118 (samface):
Posted by samface (131.116.254.199) on 16-May-2003 13:07:24
In Reply to Comment 114:
Every opportunity? The only opportunity you give me is Rich Woods which will only give this information to certain individuals hand picked by himself and then you mentioned something about a fee...
-------------------
You've had access to the thendic-amiga documents for MANY months - I deleted your access because Ray Akey wouldn't tell me whom in Amiga he was passing this info to.
I didn't charge you a fee - you want the certified offical court documents - well talk to the court clerk and pay $1 per certified page.
Then you host a web sit eand put up the info? How's that?
-----------------------
Why should it be *my* responsibility to verify *your* claims? No, that's not how it usually goes. If *you* make claims/accusations about or against anything or anyone, *you* are the one with the burden of proof. It's as simple as that, really.
--------------------
It may be WAY over your head - but I DO NOT have to prove ANYTHING to you - you want to match the $1,000 Ray Akey challenge I posted? I DID come up with a CASHIER'S CHECK for $1,000 made out to Akey - MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT WALKS!
How much can you afford to put up? $1,000? $5,0000? $10,000? You tell me - I've got it covered.
Post the info in this area so we ALL can see if you can "TALK THE TALK"! |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 263 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by samface on 26-May-2003 11:54 GMT | In reply to Comment 262 (Rich Woods):
Rich, I know that I have had access and I have seen the documents they are refering to. My arguments were rather hypothetical. Wether I have actual access or not doesn't matter, it's still not *my* responsibility to prove *their* claims. It's like asking the defendant to prove the prosecutor's indictment. It doesn't make sense no matter how much you try to twist and turn it around.
I never said that I didn't have access, that was just more assumptions from the people replying to my posts.
Furthermore, like I explained in my earlier posts, those documents are not proof of their claims. I'm inclined to agree that it's pretty fair arguments, but still not *proof*. I'm sorry if it upsets your prejudged mindsets but, I will not assume anything besides what those court documents says.
Also, claiming that this information is public is complete and utter nonsense since access is obviously restricted. These claims are public and available for anyone and everyone with a computer and an internet connection, the so-called "proof" to back it up is restricted to a small selection of individuals with username and password protection. Wether you want to make this information available to the public or not is of course up to you. However, don't expect people to automaticly believe you simply because you say so, nor expect them to try verifying your words on their own.
I'm NOT telling you to shut up, I'm only stating my *opinion* that making these kind of claims without beeing prepared to back it up is rather pointless and hurts your own credibility. My advice is; back it up or don't refer to this as facts in these kind of discussions at all.
Furthermore, why did you restrict my access? I have NOT given away access to these documents in any way to anyone, neither do I know Ray nor have had any contact with him what so ever. I do NOT even recall that you have tried contacting me regarding this issue and I would've appreciated if you would have done so before deciding to remove my account.
I will also send this as a private e-mail since the thread has become somewhat old. |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 264 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 26-May-2003 13:40 GMT | In reply to Comment 263 (samface):
Posted by samface (131.116.254.197) on 26-May-2003 13:54:34
In Reply to Comment 262:
Rich, I know that I have had access and I have seen the documents they are refering to. My arguments were rather hypothetical. Wether I have actual access or not doesn't matter, it's still not *my* responsibility to prove *their* claims. It's like asking the defendant to prove the prosecutor's indictment. It doesn't make sense no matter how much you try to twist and turn it around.
-----------------------
Sammy - GET REAL - what am I trying to "twist and turn around"?
When have I EVER asked you to "prove" any claims?
I have been completely neutral in the Thendic-Amiga documents.
BTW - since you have "seen" the documents I am referring to please answer this - is this from the access I gave you that you've seen the documents or is this from your seeing the documents from another source? (Amiga, their lawyers, or your own obtaining the documentation from the Federal Court Clerk)?
Ask for the bet I made with Ray - you KNOW there has been no forgery or tampering with the court documents and info I have posted. Why would I?
Continuing on - when have I EVER asked you to prove anything?
I have posted the official court documents - since NO evidence has been presented (as of yet) - it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to ANY conclusion - either for Amiga or Thendic.
Simple? Capesh? Understand? NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED - THEREFORE NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN!
That's about as simple as I can make it.
--------------------------------
I never said that I didn't have access, that was just more assumptions from the people replying to my posts.
What assumptions other people have made mean NOTHING to me.
--------------------------------
Furthermore, like I explained in my earlier posts, those documents are not proof of their claims. I'm inclined to agree that it's pretty fair arguments,
--------------------------------
I'll try to explain - the documents are PRELIMINARY paperwork filed in regards to the claim(s) Thendic made against Amiga. THAT'S ALL. Claims and counterclaims.
I'm so unbiased I'll even refute YOUR claim "I'm inclined to agree that it's pretty fair arguments". Simply put AGAIN since NO EVIDENCE has been presented it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any type of judgement, opinion or thought on the validity of ANY claim or counterclaim.
How can I make it any clearer? I wonder if everyone else reading this understands what I have just posted. Maybe SOMEONE can explain it to you.
Another factor - are you "officially speaking for Amiga, its principals and/or assigns"?
Want to comment on the fact billyboy filed his OWN paperwork on the court case (specifically the paperwork where the beginning of his PO Box was listed - with the city convienantly cut off)? Still trying to hide his whereabouts.
(Hey - at least I haven't published his home address or other information - yet!)
Obviously billyboy was tring to save costs - as most likely he had no money to pay the attornies. Of course, his legendary business acumen was not aware of the fact that in Federal court corporations have to be represented by a lawyer (unless a judge has ruled otherswise - I see NO MOTIONS that billyboy be allowed to (guffaw!) represent himself (as "CEO" of Amiga, Inc.)
Just for the hell of it here is billyboy's and Amiga's PO Box address.
Amiga, Inc
Bill McEwen
PO Box 887
Ravensdale, WA 98051
---------------------
but still not *proof*. I'm sorry if it upsets your prejudged mindsets but, I will not assume anything besides what those court documents says.
--------------------
Sigh - see above - you are more prejudiced than I (again see above).
"I will not assume anything besides what those court documents says".....
So what does your post of
"I'm inclined to agree that it's pretty fair arguments".
imply? It implies you think Thendic made some "pretty fair arguments"?
------------------------
Also, claiming that this information is public is complete and utter nonsense since access is obviously restricted.
------------------------
Since it's is so restricted how was I able to get the clerk of the Federal Court to send me copies? Why not ask billyboy for HIS copies? Or ask the lawyers for their copies - failing both of those attempts - how about sending your money to the court clerk and getting OFFICAL court copies?
Here you are showing your total lack of knowledge and complete ignorance of what is and isn't "public information".
All PUBLIC court proceedings, the documents filed, the transcripts that are made up, are PUBLIC INFORMATION. Available to ANYONE who pays the regulatory fees to the proper person in the proper jurisdiction.
This includes the bankruptcy filings of a certain (unamed here) Amiga "employee", volunteer, paid for or not paid for person.
The Texas bankruptcy court filing and docket info is:
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Texas (Houston)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 99-32613
Assigned to: William R. Greendyke
Chapter 7
Voluntary
No asset
Date Filed: 03/17/1999
Date Terminated: 07/19/1999
Date Discharged: 07/19/1999
-----------------------
since access is obviously restricted.lable for anyone and everyone with a computer and an internet connection, the so-called "proof" to back it up is restricted to a small selection of individuals with username and password protection.
----------------------
So do what I did at first - send your MONEY to the Federal COURT CLERK and get the OFFICIAL court documents for yourself!
Sheesh - am I the provider of Info for Amiga employees that can't get straight answers from billyboy?
----------------
Wether you want to make this information available to the public or not is of course up to you.
DUH! Thanks for the heads up!
---------------
However, don't expect people to automaticly believe you simply because you say so, nor expect them to try verifying your words on their own.
-------------
And WHAT are they supposed to believe? The court documents are there - or available - no evidence has been presented so there really is NOTHING to be believed except Amiga is being sued (8th time or better?)
----------------
I'm NOT telling you to shut up,
If I didn't listen to peake why would I listen to you?
------------------
I'm only stating my *opinion* that making these kind of claims without beeing prepared to back it up is rather pointless and hurts your own credibility. My
What claims EXACTLY have I made up? Show me the e-mail or post concerning anything I have said on the Thendic-Amiga situation.....
I'm sure OVERWHELMINGLY my credibility is intact - so credible that Amiga employees go to my web site to get the info that their "own" company won't give or tell them!
-------------
advice is; back it up or don't refer to this as facts in these kind of discussions at all.
-------------
What "FACTS" precisely are you talking about?
-------------
Furthermore, why did you restrict my access? I have NOT given away access to these documents in any way to anyone, neither do I know Ray nor have had any contact with him what so ever. I do NOT even recall that you have tried
------------
Honestly - because of Ray's refusal to tell me whom at Amiga he was passing those documents to.
I'm not here to elucidate Amiga employees, contracters, volunteers whether paid for or not. Since they (as you) are calling into question my veracity and the fact the documents may or may not be correct - why not get "OFFICIAL" copies from billyboy, Amiga's lawyers or the Federal Court Clerk?
------------------
contacting me regarding this issue and I would've appreciated if you would have done so before deciding to remove my account.
-----------------
I'll agree with you on the above. However since THIS post and making statements that I am actually making claims on the Thendic Amiga court case and how I am twisting things around - isn't it really better you get the OFFICIAL documents from the OFFICIAL Federal sources?
That way you really have no need for access to the Thendic documents which may or may not be err "tainted" - at least as per Ray's claims.
PS - May 1st was the deadline for joining aditional parties to the suit persuant to Judge Lasnick's order(s).
No additional parties have so been enjoined.
June 4th is the date for "reports from expert witnesses"
So some money will have to be spent by Amiga for such "Expert witnesses".
It'll be interesting to see if any "expert witnesses" are from Amiga or their source of over 3,000 developers.
It'll be equally interesting to see Genesi's list of "expert witnesses".
Discovery completed by August 3rd.
THIS will be the interesting part -
Trial date set for the beginning of December, 2003 (if it goes that far - I predict HIGHLY unlikely). |
|
| Amiga, Inc. office equipment being sold off? : Comment 265 of 265 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by samface on 27-May-2003 05:56 GMT | In reply to Comment 264 (Rich Woods):
Uuuhm... I think you misinterpreted me completely, Rich. My response was not really intended to be directed to only you in specific but was also a follow up on some of the arguments from other people. Reread a few posts back and you might understand what those arguments was about.
Sorry for not making that clear.
However, you have still not responded regarding my removed access to your FTP.
No, I have no connection with Amiga Inc. what so ever except for an Amiga Club membership. Just FYI. |
|
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
