26-Mar-2017 22:45 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 260 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 260]
[Rant] Hostage NegotiationANN.lu
Posted on 27-Jan-2004 02:07 GMT by Greg Ford260 comments
View flat
View list
There are a group of people, at Amiga Inc, who have decided that their personal reasons are more important than the interests of the company, employees, investors, the customers, and even potential customers, and have ceased any and all effort to involve themselves in anything at all that doesn't directly relate to these personal reasons, even if it means earning an income against it's current mountain of debts. Amiga is being held hostage, and someone's looking to do something about it. The only people that were in any position to remedy this situation were a group of investors who had already lost fortunes in Amiga Inc, and were asked for more money. They were concerned over the money already invested, but told that unless they invested more, they'd never see any returns on these investments ever. The investors didn't like this at all, they felt, exactly like I said, that the small group of people at Amiga Inc, were literally holding Amiga hostage for more money. They did the only thing they could do, they hired Garry Hare to try to restart the company and salvage something for the investors who had already invested large amounts of capital into the failed company.

The problem was, those few at Amiga quickly realised that this was an attempt to get around Amiga Inc's demands for more investment capital, and completely refused to cooporate with Garry Hare, and even going so far as to publicly obfuscate to it's customers Garry's position in the failing company. Garry was instrumental in generating dozens of potentially profitable leads in his three month project that he spent representimg Amiga Inc at tradeshows and technology conferences. Many business contacts and developers became interested and attempted to follow up on these leads, only to be shunned by Amiga Inc who was making it very clear to the investors that they will not be subverted in this way. Either they would invest more capital like Amiga Inc demanded, or Amiga Inc would literally sit on their hands at Amiga Inc and do absolutely nothing, ensuring that the investors money would not produce any potential profits at all, and keeping Amiga Inc in a nonproductive stasis untill such a time when the investors will finally cave in to their demands and give them the investment capital.

To this day Amiga Inc. and the investors are still locked in a standoff, and it appears that neither will give in to the other. The investors are still looking for a way to controll the damage, to get at least a little back from their investment or even wrestle controll as to lead Amiga into promoting it's current technology, while Amiga Inc refuse to both (1) go bankrupt, instead hoping the investors will cave in to Amiga Inc's demands, or (2) try to generate an income, they will not do this as this would be giving in to the investors, who they want more money from.

There is no right or wrong being implied here, but the fact remains nothing will change untill someone gives in. It's quite apparent Amiga Inc believes that it will be the investors who will give in, as they speak quite publically about expecting the next round of funding to be recieved any day now. However I don't know if Amiga Inc realise that, as we speak, the leads that have been generated in spite of Amiga Inc's steadfast resolve to hold out against the investors are being contacted for information about the way in which Amiga Inc has shunned them when they tried to follow up on these leads. I myself have been contacted although I couldn't offer them anything other than telling them Amiga Inc simply refused to follow up on inqueries I've sent them.

All I could gather from these people is that they are determined to do something about the situation. Unfortunately I couldn't offer them much. It would be in my own interests as well for this to be resolved one way or the other as my own plans are in stasis untill something happens as well. Someone has to give. Seeing as how I can't help them much in any way, I'd like to hear from others who might have information that might help the investors in making their case that Amiga Inc is intentionally keeping the company in stasis. I'm not sure if they are preparing legal action or whatever, but to be on the safe side, if you could refrain from posting the details, and instead contact me and I'll give you instructions on contacting the interested parties.

You can contact me at GregFordEmbedded@hotmail.com, and we can start from there. Thank you for your time.

Hostage Negotiation : Comment 1 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Whoa (192.156.8.34) on 27-Jan-2004 01:54 GMT
I can't wait to see how this thread develops. I have the popcorn waiting.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 2 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Mr. Anonymous (168.143.113.150) on 27-Jan-2004 01:56 GMT
Sounds like the investors are as bad at signing bad contracts as Amiga, Inc. If the contract was any good, the investors would have had control of Amiga, Inc. by now. I assume that there is a contract between the VC and Amiga, Inc. There must be some clause under which the VC can get ownership of the company or the IP. It's quite obvious that these VC are not of the "Lone Shark" type. Otherwise, they would have cleaned house by now.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 3 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by MarkTime (67.106.203.98) on 27-Jan-2004 02:33 GMT
Wow this is so timely, I contacted Amiga, Inc. about purchasing one million units for giving away for free in the UK in exchange for placing ads on the machines....of course, I didn't actually have any money, but still a courtesy call would have been nice.

They never called me back, and that was bad enough, but the restraining order was really just an extra slap in the face.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 4 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Lando (81.135.112.104) on 27-Jan-2004 02:53 GMT
And so, all of Amiga Inc's lies and obfustication over the last years are wasted. Take note. The truth will out, guys, no matter how much you try to hide it.

I wonder if we'll see Fleecy post an apology for his lies about the Garry Hare fiasco on Amigaworld.net?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 5 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 02:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (MarkTime):
restraining order? Are you serious?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 6 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by James Carroll (210.86.83.178) on 27-Jan-2004 02:55 GMT
There are two sides to every story, which is a shame because I dont think Amiga Inc is going to comment officially.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 7 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 02:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Lando):
He didn't really lie, and in fact much of what looked liked stupidity doesn't really look all that stupid anymore... like a fox.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 8 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by MarkTime (67.106.203.98) on 27-Jan-2004 03:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (anon):
No I wasn't serious.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 9 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Halcion (216.127.82.98) on 27-Jan-2004 03:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (MarkTime):
The scary part is Amiga Inc have genuinely been contacted by people with money, excellent references, and interest in business relationships, and Amiga has steadfastly refused to hear any part of it. They simply will not do any business, period.

Maybe Amiga wants both, the investment money they've been waiting for all this time from the investors they have over a barrel, and will contact all these customers once they finagle the funds from the investors, allowing them to pay off debts, etc, and then harvest the business relationships.

The problem is, potential business customers probably don't appreciate being shunned, and might not be around if/when this happens. It's a dangerous game, but maybe Amiga Inc. feels their only hope is squeezing the investors at this point.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 10 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Lando (81.135.112.104) on 27-Jan-2004 03:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (anon):
Fleecy: "all I am saying is that contrary to the rumours, Bill McEwen is still the CEO of Amiga Inc and if there was a new CEO then don't you think that new CEO would have used his new powers to announce that fact?"

I'm sorry, but to me, that is a lie. Maybe you have a different interpretation.

Then he later concedes that Garry Hare has been working at Amiga Inc.

"With the amount of interest and work coming into Amiga, Bill made it clear to the board that he just had too much to do. One of our main investors introduced Garry to Bill and since that moment Garry has been providing informal advice and support as a favour to the investor."

Also a lie, if what we've just read from Greg Ford is true. Fleecy says that Garry Hare was brought in as a favour to Bill McEwen, after he told the investors that his workload was too heavy. He also says that Garry Hare was merely providing "informal advice".
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 11 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Lando (81.135.112.104) on 27-Jan-2004 03:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Halcion):
"Maybe Amiga wants both, the investment money they've been waiting for all this time from the investors they have over a barrel, and will contact all these customers once they finagle the funds from the investors, allowing them to pay off debts, etc, and then harvest the business relationships.

The problem is, potential business customers probably don't appreciate being shunned, and might not be around if/when this happens. It's a dangerous game, but maybe Amiga Inc. feels their only hope is squeezing the investors at this point."

It sounds to me like Amiga Inc really don't care about the business any more. they gave up on it a long time ago. No company with any serious regard for the future of their business would behave this way. All they're interested in now is getting money from the investors, which will go straight into their bank accounts to pay their 6-figure back salaries that they're owed.

These are very large sums of money we're talking about, it makes a lot more sense for them to keep Amiga Inc on the brink with the hope of twisting the investors' arms into handing over more cash than it does to announce bankruptcy now and lose everything they're owed.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 12 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 03:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Lando):
I'm not saying they wern't dishonest, I'm just saying it makes sense to me now why they said exactly what they said. Be honest, doesn't that sound exactly what you'd expect Fleecy to say in that situation?

It sounds like Fleecy et al were expecting something to happen sooner, and guessed wrong, and got caught up in it.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 13 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 04:20 GMT
Rant? Sure it's political, but I don't know about rant. "Rant" makes me think of something where known information is regurgitated and grouched about, doesn't seem fitting.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 14 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Lando (81.135.112.104) on 27-Jan-2004 04:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (anon):
Yes, you're absolutely right.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 15 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Kemp (Registered user) on 27-Jan-2004 04:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (anon):
If I were to put this (unconfirmed) information as news, a whole lot of people would complain. Then again, if it turns out to be the truth, or a close approximation of it, then putting it in forum would not be enough. Hence "rant".
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 16 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 04:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Christian Kemp):
True. Maybe rumors and rants should be lumped together anyway, under a rumor/rant category.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 17 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Kemp (Registered user) on 27-Jan-2004 04:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (anon):
The problem, as always, is where to draw the line. When does a rumour become "news"? When does "news" turn into a discussion that fits better into "rant"? When do any of these no longer fit the "news" or "rant" criteria and better belong in "forum"?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 18 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by 0 (81.128.245.159) on 27-Jan-2004 05:03 GMT
Whats LANDO doing visiting the FANBOY site ??

Does anyone really believe a business would not want to do business ?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 19 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 05:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Christian Kemp):
> The problem, as always, is where to draw the line. When does a rumour
> become "news"?

Once it's been proven I guess, but political items usually can't be. That pretty much designates this as rumor and is probably best left as something other than news. Rumors arn't necessarily "false" so leaving a rumor as a rumor even if proven isn't a bad thing.

> When does "news" turn into a discussion that fits better into "rant"?

Probably when the news itself has been heard before, and the "meat" is mostly editorial.

> When do any of these no longer fit the "news" or "rant" criteria and better
> belong in "forum"?

Rant and forum are pretty close in definition, the only difference being the original post, and it's preloaded bias, I guess.

I think Rant is probably the closest fit actually, but maybe the category itself could be widened a bit to include rumors? (just a thought) It makes sence, as both rants and rumors tend to generate similar discussion, tend to draw the same crowd, and neither rants or rumors need be recategorised upon being proven true or false. Rumors can be true or false and still be rumors.

Since both rants and rumors draw the same crowd, both sharing the same checkbox wouldn't be a problem for anyone. Who reads rants, but not rumors, or vice versa?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 20 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 05:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (0):
> Does anyone really believe a business would not want to do business ?

"Businesses" don't do business, people do business. If those people have an incentive to NOT do business (ie: to hold the investors over a barrel to get them to invest money the business needs) then why wouldn't they?

You're oversimplifying the situation.

Imagine this situation (not as an analogy, because it's not supposed to fit, but only to show why "Why wouldn't a business do business?" is oversimplification):

You plow driveways. neighbors approach you and demand you plow their driveways. You refuse unless they either convince everyone on the street to subscribe to your service ensuring you make enough for the trip, or the neighbors that do want their driveways plowed make up the difference. You might be profitable without this measure, but you do this for added profit, just because you can. Doesn't hurt to try.

Ok, another plower comes by, and they approach him, and ask if HE will plow instead. He looks at the situation, sees that he can undercut if he will do single driveways, but then thinks to himself, "Hey, I could play the same game, and impose the same restrictions, but just do it cheaper so they choose me instead of him"

Life is complicated, nothing's simple.

It would be interesting to know what business Amiga Inc are trying to do.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 21 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Coder (202.59.254.2) on 27-Jan-2004 05:46 GMT
Hi,

I remember a time when you talked about Amiga you were talking about computers. But these days it's about lawsuits, screwups etc. Even if this is not true (the story) Amiga Inc. is still putting up one hell of a show. It's not clear who is doing what, were the hell is Bill McEwen? etc. How come the right people for the job are not there and the people that are least qualified are filling the spot? The line between benefit of the doubt and let it all go is REALLY thin these days.

Coder
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 22 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Lancelot (130.94.107.164) on 27-Jan-2004 05:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Coder):
I wouldn't worry about it too much. I doubt it has anything much to do with AmigaOS or the AmigaOne anyway. The only entities affected would be AmigaDE and Amiga Inc as a company.
If this is true, we know why AmigaOS is bankruptcy safe like Hermans said, not due to a contract which many insist is legally impossible, but due to either way Amiga won't go bankrupt at all. Wonder if hermans knew about all this and these were the "legal details I can't reveal" that prove AmigaOS is bankruptcy safe?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 23 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by samface (131.116.254.198) on 27-Jan-2004 07:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Christian Kemp):
True or not, all information is rumours until proven otherwise. You see, rumours doesn't neccessarily have to be false, it's the unconfirmed status of the information that makes it a rumour.

So, I would simply treat this information as a rumour until someone is able to confirm it. Anyone questioning that as a decission would be faced with the question wether they are able to confirm the information or not.

Why give in to rumour mungoring trolls demanding that every rumour should be posted as facts, Chris?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 24 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith (80.225.13.139) on 27-Jan-2004 07:48 GMT
You mention that AInc. has a 'mountain of debts'. Does this imply that there is a time limit whereby AInc. must receive funding otherwise declare bankruptcy? I'm sorry - but this bit isn't quite clear.

---
Sam
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 25 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 07:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (samface):
> True or not, all information is rumours until proven otherwise.

I think even afterwards, it's still a rumor.

> You see, rumours doesn't neccessarily have to be false, it's the unconfirmed
> status of the information that makes it a rumour.

It's the source that makes it a rumor.

> So, I would simply treat this information as a rumour

Agree so far...

> until someone is able to confirm it.

Why would that make it stop being a rumor? it's a rumor weather or not it's true. The source is the same, isn't it?

> Anyone questioning that as a decission would be faced with the question
> wether they are able to confirm the information or not.

Of course not. I agree it's a rumor, I just didn't think it looked like a "rant."

> Why give in to rumour mungoring trolls demanding that every rumour should be
> posted as facts, Chris?

Who did that? I certainly think it's a rumor.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 26 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (216.127.82.97) on 27-Jan-2004 07:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Sam Smith):
"You mention that AInc. has a 'mountain of debts'. Does this imply that there is a time limit whereby AInc. must receive funding otherwise declare bankruptcy? I'm sorry - but this bit isn't quite clear. "

I think it just implies "Amiga has a mountain of debts." We all know this.
There is no time limit on how long you can be in debt. You may be in debt for 1000 years if you so desire. There's no such thing as "time limit whereby...bankrupcy. "
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 27 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund (81.226.220.32) on 27-Jan-2004 07:56 GMT
Greg Ford, would you mind introducing yourself briefly?
I.e. who are you, and why should we listen to you?

(Sorry if I've missed this earlier, but then I'd appreciate a link to your previous post(s))

IMO what you write makes sense, as in that it logically fits in with what we here have seen ourselves, but does your story pull any more weight than our conclusions from our casual observations as "outsiders"?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 28 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by samface (131.116.254.200) on 27-Jan-2004 08:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (anon):
ru·mor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rmr)
n.

1. A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.

2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay.

There is no such thing as a rumor that has been verified. If certain information has been verified to be true, it's per definition no longer a rumor.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 29 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (62.6.139.13) on 27-Jan-2004 08:08 GMT
It's too late for AmigaDE. Amiga Inc have sat on their hands for 3 years while the industry's moved on. Symbian, WindowsCE and JavaME (like AmigaDE, all were new with little software 3 years ago) are now so far ahead it's silly.

3 years ago the mobile/PDA market was a new, fast growing one. Today it is mature making it very difficult for anyone else to get a foothold.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 30 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith (80.225.13.139) on 27-Jan-2004 08:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Anonymous):
So if I was to be AInc. with 'a mountain of debt' then no-one that is owed the money has the right to take me to court and at least force bankruptcy? I suppose the logic is - if the company has nothing to sell then there is nothing for any creditors to gain.

Sorry if I'm sounding a little dense but I really don't know. Does this mean it is possible for a business to stay in debt forever? If there was a bank loan involved can the bank not force bankruptcy and at least get back a little that was paid in by selling what remains of the business.

---
Sam
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 31 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 08:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (samface):
You can't verify what goes on inside someone's mind, so this really can never be "verified", but the source is unknown/unofficial.
How could this be proven? It can't, even if it were blindingly obvious, you can never prove "why someone did something" you can only speculate.
Even if Bill McEwen himself jumped into this thread, and said "Yes, this is true" you only have his word that the reasons he did what he did are true. You can't prove someone's thoughts.
I'm afraid the dictionary leaves me wanting.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 32 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (62.6.139.13) on 27-Jan-2004 08:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (samface):
Classic samface - try to turn a thread that could be interesting into a 300-post argument about the definition of a word.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 33 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by (81.144.201.75) on 27-Jan-2004 08:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Seehund):
> Greg Ford, would you mind introducing yourself briefly?
> I.e. who are you, and why should we listen to you?

Can anyone else help out?
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 34 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (216.127.82.97) on 27-Jan-2004 08:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Sam Smith):
"So if I was to be AInc. with 'a mountain of debt' then no-one that is owed the money has the right to take me to court and at least force bankruptcy?"

You certainly have the right to take someone to court and get a judgement, several have. Bankruptcy is a tool to get OUT of debt, to get OUT of paying someone you owe, not a method of collection, that's why it's called "Bankruptcy protection"

"I suppose the logic is - if the company has nothing to sell then there is nothing for any creditors to gain. "

Legally you can't force someone to pay money they owe you without a judgement, unless the debtor has voluntarily agreed to a collateral arangement. When you lend money, you are taking a risk that it may not be repaid.

"Sorry if I'm sounding a little dense but I really don't know. Does this mean it is possible for a business to stay in debt forever?"

Yep. people too, cue the American lifestyle :D

"If there was a bank loan involved can the bank not force bankruptcy and at least get back a little that was paid in by selling what remains of the business."

If the business listed it's assets as collateral, the bank could /forclose/ on the collateral. Forced bankruptcy is RARE. Usually how it works is, if you don't have the collateral to put up in the first place, you don't get the loan. If you go broke and stop honoring your debt, you simply get cut off from future loans and the loans you defaulted on that have collateral, attempt forclosure on that collateral.

Amiga have no collteralised loans AFAWK, just investor debt, which isn't technichally even a loan as far as the courts go. You can't sue a company because you invested money and they lost it, you can pretty mich kiss it goodbye.

They do owe some people money, but their current debt isn't something that a court would force a bankruptcy over. Hell, usually the only time you hear of a forced bankruptcy is like when an airline that's in debt can't agree with the Union on wage cuts. The courts wouldn't even bother with a business like Amiga Inc, they'd tell the debtors to collect their own debts.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 35 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by samface (131.116.254.199) on 27-Jan-2004 08:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (anon):
There is much more stated in this "article" than just certain executive's intentions and reasoning. Like those people "trying to do something something about it", for example.

All we know from this article is that this Greg Ford person is for some reason trying to gather information that will help him and/or someone else to do something about this so-called "situation", which we don't even know if it exists to begin with. Heck, we don't even know if he really wants such information, this article could just be a nice and intelligent wrapping of this theory with spreading more FUD as it's purpose. In other words, we don't know jack about anything!
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 36 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by samface (131.116.254.199) on 27-Jan-2004 08:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Anonymous):
That was from Dictionary.com, there really shouldn't be anything else to say about it.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 37 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith (80.225.13.139) on 27-Jan-2004 08:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
Thanks for the info! I'm all clued up now. :)

---
Sam
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 38 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Smith (80.225.13.139) on 27-Jan-2004 08:37 GMT
What happens if OS4 sells well?

Do you think that it will be such a low income (to begin with at least) that it won't worry AInc. too much and they can still pull the 'company in stasis' trick?

Even if OS4 does well (which I hope that it does) then is it reasonable to believe that it probably won't bring in the amount of money that the investors in AInc. are looking for anyway? It appears as though they were 'sold' on the DE thing.

---
Sam
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 39 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Greg Ford (130.94.107.164) on 27-Jan-2004 08:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Seehund):
Greg Ford, would you mind introducing yourself briefly?

There's not much to say really, I'm an interested party, who has an agenda that benefits from the resolution of the above if and only if the investors don't give in, unless by some miracle the investors give in *and* profit anyway, which is unlikely. If the investors thought this was likely, there would be no standoff, they'd have come through with funds long ago. Is my agenda financially motivated? Yes. Do Amiga Inc owe me money? No. Is anything I'm saying beneficial to anyone reading this? Probably not, unless you are one of the people I'm looking for information from, in which case we may be able to help each other, depending on the situation.

I.e. who are you, and why should we listen to you?

I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but this post wasn't made to spread information, but to look for it. The only people that could really benefit from this in any way are those that have a stake in it. To the rest, I'm afraid it's just gossip unless something comes of it.

I apologise for being so vague, I'm not really sure what I can and can't say, and the original post is most of what I've been told from an investor. there's really not much in the way of a juicy conspiracy to expose or anything, just investment politics. As far as my own involvement I can't really say much about that to anyone other than those that can show they are in the same position.

I'm not trying to be difficult, things just sort of have a habit of getting that way all on their own. I wish I was in the position to do more giving and less taking of information.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 40 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by anon (24.241.141.112) on 27-Jan-2004 08:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (samface):
> That was from Dictionary.com, there really shouldn't be anything else to say about it.

That says it all.
For the same reason machines can't carry conversations very well, a dictionary frequently falls short of defining a language.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 41 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by samface (131.116.254.199) on 27-Jan-2004 09:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Greg Ford):
Back to square 1. :-/
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 42 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna (Registered user) on 27-Jan-2004 09:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (samface):
Oh dear, for once I agree with you, Sammy... the world must be falling apart! :-o
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 43 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Greg Ford (209.234.160.76) on 27-Jan-2004 09:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (samface):
Back to square 1. :-/

Again, I do apologise for the lack of entertainment value to the bystanders. I hope that doesn't sound rude or condescending, I guess what I'm trying to say, that I must have not said very well before (sorry) is that this doesn't really align politically with the usuall arguements everyone is trying to use this for.

I've had several emails that suggest (to me) that I must be a crummy writer, as I'm getting "I know how you can Screw Amiga Inc" letters and "I know how you can Help Amiga Inc" letters and neither really help me or have anything to do with who I'm looking for. I'm specifically looking for people or businesses that have been shunned by Amiga for apparently no reason in trying to establish a business relationship, or even just inquiring about one.

These people I am not looking for:
I'm not looking for someone with Amiga Inc dirt
I'm not looking for someone with ideas to bring Amiga down
I'm not looking for Amiga Inc. competitors
I'm not looking for people who hate Amiga Inc and want to help ruin them (jesus)
I'm not looking for ideas to save Amiga and make them profitable. (Well, I'm not anyway, some others I'm involved with might, but that's neither here nor there)

I'm specifically looking for others who have done at least 1 of these things from both of these lists.

List 1
()tried to establish a business relationship with Amiga Inc.
()tried to request information from Amiga that might lead to a situation where they'd make a sale of product or service
()tried to inquire about obtaining a license
()tried to inquire about anything at all that would be in Amiga Inc's best interests to follow up on.

List 2
()Been ignored
()Recieved no reply
()Been told "no" for apparently no reason, and unwilling to discuss why or even negotiate

If you are an Amiga Competitor or in any way whatsoever in a position where the failure of Amiga Inc would benefit you, I am not looking for you

Sorry, communication isn't exactly my strong point.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 44 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Greg Ford (209.234.157.46) on 27-Jan-2004 09:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Greg Ford):
Ammentment:

Or anyone with knowledge of, or leads to, the above situations.
(sorry I think that covers it, I hope)
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 45 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Kjetil (213.225.65.74) on 27-Jan-2004 10:05 GMT
GregFordEmbedded@hotmail.com

Hello what type of name is this?

You know you domain name is where subspecies,
I know one time I where bombarded whit spam mail from
@hotmail.com, @msn.com, @ahl.com this free domain name are so easy to hide behind, they should be forbidden, you know I head to get a new mail address to make the spam mail stop, now I never post mail to anyone I don’t know, I do not post e-mail addresses on web sites,

As for the story,

[1] First of all where is your reference, your store is not really credible whit out references

[2] you know you should not invest inn newly started companies if you are not prepared to lose the money you invested, lots newly started companies go bankrupt I short while after start,

[3] Do not expect short period investment in company newly started, the time from the company is started to the company get some investments return takes many times longer then expected, due to marketing, manufacturing etc, one advice thing take time. (thing never go as planed, some thing unexpected always steps inn the way)
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 46 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Greg Ford (130.94.107.164) on 27-Jan-2004 10:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Kjetil):
Email diatribe and my name
?

As for the story,
[1] First of all where is your reference, your store is not really credible whit out references
My purpose here is to find, and provide a certain investor with proof of the above, which he told me was happening, not to prove to you that this is happening. I'm looking for proof, not spreading proof.

[2] you know you should not invest inn newly started companies if you are not prepared to lose the money you invested, lots newly started companies go bankrupt I short while after start,

I'm not an investor in Amiga, I'm one of those that tried to do business with Amiga, and an investor told me of the above (the original post) and was interested in any information I could give him that would help him prove it. He said he would make it worth my while if I could provide him with this information. Unfortunately, my own story, like I said, doesn't prove anything other than they ignored me, and they need more. Much more, from others who were in a similar situation as I, so that the investors can prove that Amiga is intentionally holding stasis. (this bit is not their words, they are mine, I assume they are looking to prove that Amiga Inc are doing what the investor said they are doing.)

[3] Do not expect short period investment in company newly started, the time from the company is started to the company get some investments return takes many times longer then expected, due to marketing, manufacturing etc, one advice thing take time. (thing never go as planed, some thing unexpected always steps inn the way)

I'm afraid that has nothing at all to do with this.

To the others, If you have been in the position described before, it will be worth your while to talk to these people.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 47 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Damien Naviliat (195.212.190.98) on 27-Jan-2004 10:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Greg Ford):
Ok if you are searching for informations, clearly explain what you are waiting before orienting your request "against amiga way to do".

If your investors are wise enough, they will join Amiga Inc directly and not base their choice on rumors spread via ann.lu.

If you pass this "investor" informations spead on ann.lu (and specially those on those last two years) you have all chances to be far away from the truth, even if you're shure you're in.

You person don't seems credible, since you way to ask isn't credible. So even if your quest is truth I'm afaraid you will not have correct feedback.
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 48 of 260ANN.lu
Message removed by Christian Kemp for violation of ANN's posting rules.
Specific reason from moderator: Impersonation
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 49 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Lennart Fridén (217.209.58.150) on 27-Jan-2004 10:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Greg Ford):
"Sorry, communication isn't exactly my strong point."

Compared to the majority of ANNers I find you refreshingly eloquent. :-)
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 50 of 260ANN.lu
Posted by Mikey C (80.43.78.249) on 27-Jan-2004 11:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Bodie_CI5):
That's really poor, again some plonker having nothing better to do than post as a respected amigaworld member.

No it isn't Bodie_CI5, Wrong IP altogether.

Pathetic.

Mikey C
Anonymous, there are 260 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 260]
Back to Top