25-Apr-2024 07:31 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 382 items in your selection (but only 82 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 382]
[Forum] Interesting thread on Amiga.orgANN.lu
Posted on 06-Sep-2004 14:12 GMT by Anonymous (Edited on 2004-09-06 19:48:28 GMT by Christian Kemp)382 comments
View flat
View list
Due to censorship by Argo the thread is locked but it is interesting to see a major Anti Amiga Inc webmaster turn in to a Genesi attacker and a certain website defender.

Amiga.org thread

Discuss

Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 301 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 08-Sep-2004 23:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 300 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
That's the question that the customer will ask in every case; obviously all the possible solutions should be considered. But the point in MySQL AB making Genesi a business partner and offering the ODW is, from Genesi's prospective, one more step toward getting a better foothold in the market. For many customers, there may be better options. For some, this package might have particular appeal, as it's not totally lacking merit.

If you have an interest in *any* "Amiga community" company making progress toward viability, it seems you'd see this as a good development, since it gives some indication that there are mainstream opportunities for niche players. Etablishing a track record and improving cost/performance, etc. follow.

-- gary_c
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 302 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 03:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 296 (Bernie Meyer):
>You are welcome to come up with a better scenario of what happened. But you
>will have to make it fit *all* known observations, not just the ones that fit
>your world view.

Why? You'll believe whatever you want anyway.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 303 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 09-Sep-2004 03:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 302 (Sammy Nordström):
Why? You'll believe whatever you want anyway.

For so long we have not known the actual facts about many of these situations; we've only gotten statements by people who are deeply involved and want to spin how things are perceived. For this reason I think the desire to know what really happened is probably stronger for most of us than the desire to believe some preconceived ideas. At this point, it doesn't really matter anyway, if it ever did, except to have an accurate history and maybe be able to say "I told you so" to the other 50%. :-)

-- gary_c
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 304 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 04:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 302 (Sammy Nordström):
Nonsense.I'll believe what makes sense. And face it, your version of events doesn't make sense, because it fails to account for some of the known facts. It is also based around the premise that BB is not only evil and devious, but also stupid. And while I have no doubt there is a lot of deviousness, as well as a lot of stupidity to be found in this story, they are not usually found in the same place...
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 305 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 05:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 304 (Bernie Meyer):
It is stupid to be evil and devious, IMO.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 306 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 05:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 304 (Bernie Meyer):
BTW, I would just like to add that unlike you, I don't try to fill in gaps between the facts with my own percieved notions. I don't claim that GH would have any more credibility than anyone else nor do I say that he is not credible because he is more attached to one side of the parties. I don't try to explain things like why Bill McEwan testified that he is not the CEO nor that he committed perjury. You want to know why? Because I don't know. What I am saying is that we do know as a matter of fact that one certain individual has made multiple claims on multiple occasions in public that has later turned out to be wrong and that the individual already knew that when making those claims. That's all. So please stop stating those speculations and explanations trying to fill out the gaps between the facts because I'm not interested.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 307 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 09-Sep-2004 06:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 306 (Sammy Nordström):
What I am saying is that we do know as a matter of fact that one certain individual has made multiple claims on multiple occasions in public that has later turned out to be wrong and that the individual already knew that when making those claims. That's all.

It's been pointed out several times that the claims of "once certain individual" did *not* turn out to be wrong. At the very least, they are subject to interpretation. At most, they reflect the situation rather accurately, as it has come to be revealed.

I'll grant that, about one statement, Genesi did not actually get what Bill Buck said they would, as he anticipated the judge's decision too optimistically. But when a football player or political candidate says "my opponent is dead meat," we don't accuse him of *lying* when the opponent doesn't lose after all. It's just the way things are phrased in anticipation of hoped-for outcomes, and only a literal-minded fool would say he was "lied to" with such statements.

While you say you only deal with known facts, it seems to me you perceive these facts in a highly subjective way.

-- gary_c
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 308 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 09-Sep-2004 06:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 302 (Sammy Nordström):
We have resonable doubt in this case!

Most enterprises only have 1 ceo so if there`s evidence of a new ceo, the old one is generally out.

The card with the format of job titling matching Bills newly used title shows there was something going on.

Easy to draw conclusions, particulary as people often see what they want to see.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 309 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 09-Sep-2004 06:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 300 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
Marketing.

I found what Neko said compelling.

A what you need in a box solution.

Whenever there`s a feature on internet retailers they open a door and say there`s the server.

I outsource to people who offer virtual servers where things can be altered remotly as I like and don`t worry about hardware etc.

For people who don`t outsource and do worry, this sort of pitch would be interesting.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 310 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 06:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 306 (Sammy Nordström):
What you are saying, however, is based on a false belief.You claim that BB knew GH wasn't the CEO when he made his comment to that effect. Why? What makes you think so?BB had received a business card with "GH, Chairman/CEO Amiga Inc" on it. BB had talked to GH on the phone, and in that conversation, GH acted as if he was in a position to speak on AI's behalf. *That* much the accounts agree upon.I am saying that it's quite reasonable to believe that someone who hands out business cards saying "CEO" and acts as if speaking on behalf of the company is indeed CEO. You say BB should have known better than to believe in what he could see and hear. Why?And *don't* answer with "because GH made it clear" or "because GH told him so", because remember, we are looking at this with the eyes of someone who doesn't believe GH's story, right?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 311 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 09-Sep-2004 07:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 310 (Bernie Meyer):
Please, Bernie. You are making too much sense and it is just painful to watch... :)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 312 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 07:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 307 (gary_c):
It turned out to be wrong that Garry Hare would be the new CEO of Amiga Inc. Garry Hare is the CEO of KMOS Inc. Reference:
http://www.mindrelease.net/amiga-thendic/show_case_doc_54,16781,0,MAGIC,0,1.pdf

It turned out to be wrong that a certain e-mail used as evidence in a certain court case would be from Fleecy Moss. Yet the individual at hand insisted that it was. Reference:
http://www.mindrelease.net/amiga-thendic/show_case_doc_65,16781,,,,1.pdf

It turned out to be wrong that Genesi would have acquired the rights for the AmigaOS product line, yet a certain individual even announced to the public their future plans for it. Reference:
http://flyingmice.com/cgi-bin/squidcgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/98063.shtml

Shall I go on?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 313 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 07:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 312 (Sammy Nordström):
> It turned out to be wrong that Garry Hare would be the new CEO of Amiga Inc.

Oh, well, can you blame BB for not having foreseen the name of the new company that was going to being formed to hide AInc's debts?

On the other hand, it turned out to be true - or so does Bill McEwen say - that he was no longer CEO of AInc. Look in your own documents to find his sworn testimony. And do not cut this part away!!.

> It turned out to be wrong that a certain e-mail used as evidence in a certain
> court case would be from Fleecy Moss. Yet the individual at hand insisted that
> it was. Reference:

The individual at hand insisted that he believed it was genuine. He has no (public) evidence of the contrary, and you neither if you don't count as evidence (and you shouldn't) Fleecy's word.

> It turned out to be wrong that Genesi would have acquired the rights for the
> AmigaOS product line, yet a certain individual even announced to the public
> their future plans for it.

So? Shall we count all plans that AInc failed to accomplish? Don't make me laugh!

> Shall I go on?

Yes please :-)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 314 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 07:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 310 (Bernie Meyer):
>You say BB should have known better than to believe in what he could see and
>hear. Why?

Considering the ongoing litigation at that time, it would have been easy for him to verify who was or wasn't CEO. A change of managment in the middle of such lawsuit would NOT have gone unnoticed. And then like Garry said, the appropriate way for him to communicate with Amiga Inc. at that time would be through legal counsel. The fact that he didn't communicate with Garry Hare through legal counsel tells me that he knew that Garry was not CEO of Amiga Inc.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 315 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 08:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 314 (Sammy Nordström):
> Considering the ongoing litigation at that time, it would have been easy for him
> to verify who was or wasn't CEO. A change of managment in the middle of such
> lawsuit would NOT have gone unnoticed.

In fact, it did not. As should know by now, Bill McEwen testimonied, under oath, that he was no longer CEO of Amiga, Inc.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 316 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 08:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 313 (Fabio Alemagna):
>He has no (public) evidence of the contrary, and you neither if you don't
>count as evidence (and you shouldn't) Fleecy's word.

Fabio, you obviously don't have a clue about these legal issues so please stop. Hint: A court testimony IS evidence.

Furthermore, you must be really blind if you think that the individual at hand *actually* thought the e-mail was genuine, even after the one who wrote it admitted to his practical joke.

>Shall we count all plans that AInc failed to accomplish?

Amiga Inc. is not the issue at hand here, Fabio.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 317 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 315 (Fabio Alemagna):
>In fact, it did not. As should know by now, Bill McEwen testimonied, under
>oath, that he was no longer CEO of Amiga, Inc.

So now we should believe in the words of Amiga Inc. officials? Hypocrite.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 318 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 314 (Sammy Nordström):
Ah, I see. So if, during ongoing litigation, one company decides to sell an asset that, according to the other party in the litigation, is subject of the litigation --- would you expect the other party to know about it? Would you expect such a sale to "not go unnoticed"? That, after all, is a significant change with respect to the case. Unlike a change in CEO, which has very little relevance on litigation between two corporate entities....And you seem to conveniently forget a few things. You seem to forget Genesi making noises about dropping the lawsuit now that AI had gotten a more work-withable leader. You are forgetting that the stated intention of the lawsuit was to shut up McBill and Fleecy. So why do you consider it so unusual for Bill Buck to phone this new CEO (who, after all, handed out business cards with his phone number on them), and to talk to the guy to find out who he is now dealing with? You can't really sound out someone through legal counsel, not the least because both sides are aware that things always end up in writing, and thus can't speak their mind freely. You can't go "Look, how about this --- you give me X, I give you Y, and we forget about the past, how about it?" through legal counsel, without risking major embarrassment.How do you supposed BB should have verified the veracity of the business card? Here, try yourself --- I work for a company called "SmartGuide", ACN 093876150. Now, tell me who our managing director is. And do the same for "Pixeltech" (hint: both companies are in Australia).And last but not least --- why *should* BB have felt the need to verify that the guy who says he is AI CEO, acts as if he is AI CEO, was known to associate with the majority stakeholder in AI, and was named by AI itself in their court filings as someone who knew much about what's going on, is indeed the CEO?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 319 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 08:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 315 (Fabio Alemagna):
BTW, what you just said confirms that such things doesn't go unnoticed during a litigation.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 320 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 08:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 319 (Sammy Nordström):
So when, in the two months of March and April 2003, was there a court date in the Genesi vs Amiga Inc case with McBill in attendance?In fact, McBill even having the chance to say "you got the wrong guy here" during Bolton's day at court indicates that the court was *unaware* of that fact (what would be the point of compelling McBill as CEO of Amiga Inc to attend if he is the wrong guy?).
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 321 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 09-Sep-2004 08:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 316 (Sammy Nordström):
>Fabio, you obviously don't have a clue about these legal issues so please
>stop. Hint: A court testimony IS evidence.

Cool. But what to do when the same court evidence says two different stories? Fleecy says it is not genuine. Buck says he still believes it to be. Apparently the court did not rule either way, so we don't know.

Word versus word is hardly the cold hard evidence you paint it to be.

Frankly, I do believe the email probably was fake, but we don't know for sure. It really doesn't matter, either way, that much in the ongoing debate about Buck's failures or lack thereof IMHO.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 322 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by minator on 09-Sep-2004 08:54 GMT
I think the truth of this matter is a grey area to say the least and we'll probably never know what really happened. My guess is Bernie is pretty close in his speculations.

All we know is different versions from diferent angles.

They may not appear to fit but that doesn't meant either side is lying - I think a more appropiate and accurate word is "marketing".
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 323 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 09-Sep-2004 08:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 317 (Sammy Nordström):
>So now we should believe in the words of Amiga Inc. officials? Hypocrite.

So you only hear the parts you want to hear?

Really, Sammy. If we truly believe in the notion that we better not believe anyone (at least not blindly so), we must conclude that we have no way of knowing whether the Buck camp or the Hare camp lied in the business card incident. We really, really do not. There are contradictory issues all around us, and as you yourself point out, even within the Hare camp.

In the end, it is possible and, I'd wager, even quite likely that both parties are telling a part of the truth, witholding some bits (but not the same bits) and then twisting the rest to fit their particular situation and agenda. It isn't any harder fathoming Buck shooting from the hip back then to create a bit of discussion than it is to see Hare writing his interview answers much later with some selective memory.

I really, really doubt anyone is truly innocent here. You fail to acknowledge that.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 324 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 09:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 316 (Sammy Nordström):
Sammy sammy, how can you be so frakin' ridiculous is beyond me. I've explicitely asked to not cut a part of my posting away, yet you shamelessy did it.

Don't you see you're coming off as stupid?

Answer to this:

Oh, well, can you blame BB for not having foreseen the name of the new company that was going to being formed to hide AInc's debts?

On the other hand, it turned out to be true - or so does Bill McEwen say - that he was no longer CEO of AInc. Look in your own documents to find his sworn testimony.

I'll repost that until you give an answer.

> >He has no (public) evidence of the contrary, and you neither if you don't
> >count as evidence (and you shouldn't) Fleecy's word.
>
> Fabio, you obviously don't have a clue about these legal issues so please
> stop. Hint: A court testimony IS evidence.

:-) Sammy, a testimony is just that, a testimony. In no way a testimony can be evidence of anything, or else there wouldn't be something like "false testimony" (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f015.htm). A testimony is no proof, hence it can't be evidence.


> Furthermore, you must be really blind if you think that the individual at hand
> *actually* thought the e-mail was genuine, even after the one who wrote it
> admitted to his practical joke.

What I think is just that you have no evidence of the contrary. So shut up.

> >Shall we count all plans that AInc failed to accomplish?
>
> Amiga Inc. is not the issue at hand here, Fabio.

That's irrelevant. You're using that argument to attack a "certain individual", as if it were an important thing to note, whilst it's not, it's just a plan that didn't get accomplished. One against the many of your beloved party.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 325 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 09:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 317 (Sammy Nordström):
> So now we should believe in the words of Amiga Inc. officials? Hypocrite.

Look, it's that easy: would you say a person is intelligent if he purposedly testified something that was bad for him? I'd say no, hence I believe him.

Moreover, if I am hypocrite for applying this logic, so are you, because you are so inclined to believe Fleecy, but you dismiss Bill McEwen's testimony :-)

The difference between me and you, though, is that you want to believe what's best for you, I want to believe what's more logical.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 326 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 09:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 319 (Sammy Nordström):
> BTW, what you just said confirms that such things doesn't go unnoticed during a
> litigatio

And wasn't that my point, Sammy? And wasn't your point that if it were true, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed? So, 2+2=4, and you are wrong.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 327 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 09:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 324 (Fabio Alemagna):
> -) Sammy, a testimony is just that, a testimony. In no way a testimony can be
> evidence of anything,

Of course I'm talking about spoken testimony.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 328 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 09:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 318 (Bernie Meyer):
>So if, during ongoing litigation, one company decides to sell an asset that,
>according to the other party in the litigation, is subject of the litigation
>--- would you expect the other party to know about it?

Did I mention anything about selling assets? What has selling assets go to do with changing CEO?

>So why do you consider it so unusual for Bill Buck to phone this new CEO (who,
>after all, handed out business cards with his phone number on them), and to
>talk to the guy to find out who he is now dealing with?

Because even if you plan to settle, it would have to go through legal counsel. Talking to your legal opponent directly is a huge risk. "Anything you say can and will be used against you", remember?

Besides, the motive to "just shut Bill McEwan up" tells me alot about the character of the individual at hand and what he is prepared to do solely for the sake of a personal grudge.

>How do you supposed BB should have verified the veracity of the business card?

Again, there was an ongoing litigation and it should just be a matter of asking his lawyer to contact Amiga Inc.'s lawyer then go from there. They would have to do that if they were planning to settle anyway, right?

>And last but not least --- why *should* BB have felt the need to verify that
>the guy who says he is AI CEO, acts as if he is AI CEO, was known to associate
>with the majority stakeholder in AI, and was named by AI itself in their court
>filings as someone who knew much about what's going on, is indeed the CEO?

Because his company was in litigation with AI and because AI had not made a change of CEO known, neither in court nor in public?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 329 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 09:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 324 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabio, you *really* don't know what you're talking about.

TESTIFY - To give evidence according to law; the examination of a witness who declares his knowledge of facts.

Now stop trolling. I'm not going to bother with you anymore.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 330 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 09-Sep-2004 09:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 329 (Sammy Nordström):
>Now stop trolling. I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

But Fleecy saying so in court doesn't really make something a fact. Better yet, since Buck continued to state his contrary belief during the same proceedings. Court never ruled AFAIK on which story they believe.

But all this is irrelevant anyway. The point is: We don't know which party lied and how much during the business card incident. You painting it all on Buck simply doesn't hold water if we agree that no one can be trusted. All we know is that business cards were indeed handed out and, as for the rest, the stories differ even within the two camps.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 331 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 09-Sep-2004 09:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 328 (Sammy Nordström):
>alking to your legal opponent directly is a huge risk. "Anything you say can and
>will be used against you", remember?

There is no such risk when you directly phone the other side. They may hang up on you, but thats all, since they can't use whatever you said in court.

Going through lawyers means a much bigger risk, with much smaller chance to succeed.

But back to the facts:
The buisness-card exists.
Noone (at that time) directly claim that the information on it was false. They all went on how easy it was to falsify such a card, but thats all.
McBill said (under oath) that he was no longer CEO.
Garry handed out the cards.
Garry did work for netventures who at that time claimed to own 50% of AInc.
Garry did end up in charge of AInc in the end.

Possible scenarios:
Garry was (forcefully) introduced as new CEO by Netventures.
He was handing out the cards while there where still some formalities undone.
During that time he(or Netventures) realized that this was not a good way and choose the Itec/KMOS detour.
Garry is trying to save face by claiming to have told everybody bout the "faked" cards.

Makes sense, fits all secondary evidence (McBill's oath, AInc behaviour when the card turned up).

No. 2:
Garry was in talks with AInc,but nothing was decided. He made those cards and handed them out stating that they didn't reflect reality.

Doesn't make much sense, doesn`t fit up with the secondary evidence.

And even my view on Garry isn't bad enough to believe he acted in such a childish unproffesional manor.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 332 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 09:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 328 (Sammy Nordström):
Supposedly, in April 2003, AI sold (or somehow transferred title to) AmigaOS to Itec. And yet nobody knew until early this year. Genesi, who not only were in litigation with AI during this period, but were handed a judgement which, however facetiously, they interpreted (and tried to get the judge to clarify) as giving them access to AmigaOS, obviously DID NOT KNOW.Here a major component of a commercial entity's value is being removed from a company which is getting sued. A component which, during discovery, the CEO listed as one of the major assets of said company, at the same time as stating that there were effectively no cash assets. And nobody knew. Even the court didn't know --- you yourself have all the documents.And yet you think that everyone involved would have immediately been informed of a change of CEO --- which, after all, is little more than an internal matter of the company in question? It wasn't McBill Genesi were having a suit with, it was AI --- no matter who CEOs AI.Do you really believe that "all communications goes through legal counsel" nonsense? Yes, if they had agreed to settle, they would have contacted their respective counsel, have them draw up a piece of paper for all to sign, and done it all according to the books. But do you really think that what goes onto that piece of paper, or whether there even will be a piece of paper, is done in any way other than people talking to each other, preferably with plausible deniability (i.e. no witnesses, no recordings)? What world do you live in?And as for the rest of your fantastic argument --- AI didn't make a change of ownership known, either in court or in public (and yes, AI appears to still be in default on several court rulings, so the courts probably would like to know). In fact, they still haven't. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 333 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 09:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 329 (Sammy Nordström):
> Fabio, you *really* don't know what you're talking about.

Oh dear... :-)

> TESTIFY - To give evidence according to law; the examination of a witness who
> declares his knowledge of facts.

Yes, sammy, but you should learn that one thing is hard evidence, another is a spoken testimony. If I say, under oath, that I'm the King of Persia, does that really make me one, Sammy? Why can't you understand so simple things?

Me saying I'm the King of Persia doesn't prove I'm the King of Persia, it's no hard evidence.

Moreover, both BB and Fleecy testified, and they gave contrastating tesimonies. According to you, they're both evicence. Now, how do you solve this?

> Now stop trolling. I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

LOL :-) You'd better come down from that artificial pedestal you've created in your head.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 334 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 09:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 331 (Kronos):
>There is no such risk when you directly phone the other side.

Bull. Since mr Traube had notified Garry by asking wether he would take a call from Bill, Garry could just as well had recorded the conversation.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 335 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 09:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 334 (Sammy Nordström):
> Bull. Since mr Traube had notified Garry by asking wether he would take a call
> from Bill, Garry could just as well had recorded the conversation.

Such recording is illegal in most countries, and in many States of the USA. Moreover, if the phone call was made to a cellphone it would be - to say the least - highly unlikely that it could have been recorded: something tells me Garry Hare doesn't use attaching tapping devices to his cellphone(s).

So, where was Garry Hare when he received the phone call? Was the phone call made to a cellphone?

If you can't answer to any of those questions, or if the answer is negative for you, please refrain from coming up with wild speculations based on nothing else than your imagination.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 336 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 10:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 333 (Fabio Alemagna):
If you would swear that something is true in a court of law, it is true until proven otherwise. If you would say that you were the king of Persia in a court of law, you would be accused of perjury faster than you can type "liar".

When it comes to the issue wether Fleecy has written a certain e-mail or not, Fleecy is what you would call an "expert witness". Genesi would have to come up with something that would discredit his testimony as well as the admittance by the real author of the e-mail, in order to be able to accuse Fleecy of perjury. Then maybe the e-mail could be considered to be genuine.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 337 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 10:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 336 (Sammy Nordström):
> If you would swear that something is true in a court of law, it is true until
> proven otherwise.

The same goes for BB: he said he believed that the email was not a fake. Can you prove otherwise? I dare you.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 338 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 09-Sep-2004 10:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 309 (John Block):
The problem is that what Neko said is not information you will find on _any_ of the Pegasos sites - that is what I meant with bogus advertising. You cannot just say "You can buy our computer and run MySQL on it" and hope some ignorant will buy it, you need more, alot more.

I feel this is a general problem with all Genesi projects, it seems as if they are incapable of presenting their own solutions in other than fluffy generic, and quite often irrelevant, wording.

Why should anyone buy a Pegasos to run MySQL rather than a Dell or whatnot? Why is the Pegasos a better solution? These are questions that Genesi should be answering initially in their advertising, by providing information and documentation. When they are not capable in doing so, why would anyone bother to look at their solutions at all? Apart from ignorance that is? :)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 339 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 09-Sep-2004 10:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 338 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
I used to be a copywriter - creative and marketig guy, and this sort of situation is the norm

They need to restate products as solutions to defined markets.

Stock management in a box, eccommerce in a box, customer relations in a box etc.

As you say though some credible edge like simplicity has to be there.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 340 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 09-Sep-2004 10:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 299 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
Nobody else on the MySQL site posts benchmarks in their product description.

Neko
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 341 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 335 (Fabio Alemagna):
Well, he could also have recieved the call on a speaker phone and have witnesses to the call or whatever. The point is; talking directly to your opponent of an ongoing litigation is something I wouldn't do without my lawyer present, ok?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 342 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 11:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 341 (Sammy Nordström):
But then, you also consider the behaviour of one particular individual despicable --- so what you would or wouldn't do, and what someone else would or wouldn't do, need not be one and the same.But answer me this --- if BB did indeed know that GH was not the CEO of AI, then why did he call him at all?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 343 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 11:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 337 (Fabio Alemagna):
BB can NOT testify wether it is genuine or not since he did not witness when it was written, he was not the recepient, nor did he recieve it from Fleecy. It's not a word against word situation, it's an unsubstantiated claim against a witness of the one supposedly to have written the e-mail.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 344 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 11:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 341 (Sammy Nordström):
> Well, he could also have recieved the call on a speaker phone and have witnesses
> to the call or whatever.

That too, could be illegal, for practically the same reasons as for tapping: the interlocutor is talking solely to the person on the other end of the phone, and on the basis of this knowledge he/she decides what to say.

> The point is; talking directly to your opponent of an ongoing litigation is
> something I wouldn't do without my lawyer present, ok?

Ok, you wouldn't do it, but apparently BB did, as Garry Hare himself confirmed. So what's your real point?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 345 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 11:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 343 (Sammy Nordström):
He can (and did) testify that he believes it to be genuine. Who are you to say that he didn't?He never testified that the email is genuine. It's only you who made *that* bogus claim...
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 346 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 11:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 343 (Sammy Nordström):
> BB can NOT testify wether it is genuine or not since he did not witness when it
> was written, he was not the recepient, nor did he recieve it from Fleecy.

You really don't get it, do you? What you have to disprove is that BB believed it was genuine, not that it was not genuine.

BB is guilty of nothing if he seriously believed the email was genuine and had no reasons to do otherwise. If you can't prove BB was in bad faith, then the whole point is moot. Yes, the email was probably a fake. And yes, BB probably believed it was genuine. Case closed, back to square one. No one lost, no one won.

Or you could believe either one of them is lying.

You simply have no proof of either cases, you can't say Fleecy was lying just like you can't say Fleecy was saying the truth. And no, proving or disproving it is irrelevant, because not having the proof that someone is lying doesn't mean someone is not lying, it just mean I can't prove someone is lying.

And it goes both ways. So you can't prove BB was lying when he said he believed the email to be genuine. And you can't prove he was saying the truth either.

The moral is: just give it a rest, and don't bring this point up again, because it's totally moot.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 347 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 11:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 345 (Bernie Meyer):
He can testify his beliefs, not wether it is real or not. Fleecy on the other hand, can actually testify wether he wrote it or not. See the difference?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 348 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 11:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 346 (Fabio Alemagna):
> What you have to disprove is that BB believed it was genuine, not that it was
> not genuine

Hm, that's not very clear, I'm afraind. Let's rephrase it:

What you have to disprove is the fact that BB believed the email was genuine, not the fact itself that the email was not genuine. Can you do that?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 349 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 11:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 346 (Fabio Alemagna):
Look at the ANN.lu thread that the e-mail came from. Few, if any, of those who commented to it believed it to be genuine. Some people even tried to make fun of me when they mistakenly thought I believed it was real. Give me *one* reason why he should submit the e-mail to the court without verifying it's authenticity first. I'm telling you, he knew very well that it most likely was not real and therefore should not have submitted it to the court to support his case, period. But this is what he did and for this reason, I can't do anything but to conclude that he intentionally tried (without success, but still) to mislead the court in his favor.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 350 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 12:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 348 (Fabio Alemagna):
>What you have to disprove is the fact that BB believed the email was genuine

What you fail to see is that there was plenty of reasons to verify it's authenticity before submitting it to the court as evidence and submitting false evidence to the court is pretty much the same thing as leaving false testimony. So, even if he believed it was genuine (lol!), he should have verified it's authenticity, period. The fact that he didn't shows the intent.
Anonymous, there are 382 items in your selection (but only 82 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 382]
Back to Top