26-Apr-2024 05:01 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 382 items in your selection (but only 32 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 351 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 09-Sep-2004 12:05 GMT
Oh come on guys, let's get over this bloody CEO card/court case rubbish. It's all history. Nobody knows EXACTLY was Garry was up to with the business cards and nobody knows what Bill Buck knew for sure when he made various statements. We've debated this same thing over and over and the one thing we do agree on is that we all disagree :-)

Anyway, it's all a pile of dingo's kidneys and what is far more interesting is the "mySQL" thingy with the Pegasos. Bil Buck is trying to drum up interest in it and get a foothold in the market, Neko wants to sell it and people are asking some very good questions such as "why should I pick this system over something else". Talking about this seems a hell of a lot more fun than some tatty old business card or the goings on in some stuffy court room.

Oh, and the reason products get "hyped up" is not "B*** S***", it's called "marketing" and everybody does it (and has to do it). That's why the chaps that perform the corrective lysik (spelling?) eye operation fail to mention how many people get major infections, have only a small improvement or go blind in that eye. :-)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 352 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 12:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 349 (Sammy Nordström):
> I can't do anything but to conclude that he intentionally tried (without
> success, but still) to mislead the court in his favor.

Ok, let's assue that's what has happened. Ok, BB is probably guilty of having played the smartass in order to win his case. However, the Judge has dimissed that email as evidence, BB's submission was rejected, and the Judge still ruled in favour of BB, regardless of that email.

So, if your point is that BB tried to mislead the court, ok, perhaps. But then, it's totally irrelevant, and there are plenty of similar cases on the other side as well. That is to say, picturing BB as the evil serves no other purpose than showing your bias.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 353 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 12:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 352 (Fabio Alemagna):
But the whole point of this argument was wether the actions of the individual at hand would be something we could dismiss a "mispercptions" or not, remember? Well, thank you for acknowledging atleast one of my arguments. But the other arguments of mine still stands and I'm wondering, can we conclude that the individual at hand is not just an innocent victim of misperceptions, or do you have something new to add to this discussion that would tell us otherwise?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 354 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 12:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 347 (Sammy Nordström):
Yes, I do. He believed it was real. He testified so. Based on that, you claim he lied.It is you who is accusing BB of lying. Why don't you make a case which outlines why you are sure BB did *not* believe the mail to be genuine when he said he did?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 355 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 354 (Bernie Meyer):
And just to give you something to think about --- I have had private email exchanges with Fleecy (so I know his style), and to the current day, I am not convinced that mail was a fake. So please avoid any use of words like "obvious".
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 356 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 12:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 352 (Fabio Alemagna):
BTW...

>That is to say, picturing BB as the evil serves no other purpose than showing
>your bias.

This isn't about what I favor, it's about what I'm against. This is no different like let's say, those people that are against Amiga Inc. but still without favoring Genesi. So basicly, what I'm saying here is that what I favor is irrelevant.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 357 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 12:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 355 (Bernie Meyer):
I wonder why so many didn't believe in it then, eh? Are you saying that the majority of those who commented must have been psychic or something?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 358 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 09-Sep-2004 12:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 353 (Sammy Nordström):
> But the whole point of this argument was wether the actions of the individual
> at hand would be something we could dismiss a "mispercptions" or not,
> remember?

Sammy, that's the sole point left which I might even agree on. I debunked the other 2 (only two!) you brought as soon as you came up with them.

I could bring to you and handful lot more than 3 similar cases regarding the other party which you'll have a hard time even trying to dismiss. All you might have succeeded in proving is that BB is not an angel, but then who's an angel here?

And not being an angel doesn't equal being the devil person you think BB is.

> Well, thank you for acknowledging atleast one of my arguments. But the other
> arguments of mine still stands

I'm sorry, but they don't stand at all. The CEO one doesn't stand. The one regarding BB making plans for his future acquisition don't stand either. You need to come up with stronger arguments if you want to make real points.

> and I'm wondering, can we conclude that the
> individual at hand is not just an innocent victim of misperceptions, or do you
> have something new to add to this discussion that would tell us otherwise?

He's not innocent, but he is to a certain degree (how much is of no relevance) victim of misperception, FUD and whatnot.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 359 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 09-Sep-2004 12:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 355 (Bernie Meyer):
" I have had private email exchanges with Fleecy (so I know his style), and to the current day, I am not convinced that mail was a fake. "

We all know fleecy's style. It is easily parodied, and the author of that one soon admitted he had writen it. Some guy in Australia, IIRC. He was doing a lot of hoaxes around that time.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 360 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 13:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 357 (Sammy Nordström):
You mean like comment 14, from one "samface", who wrote "[...]he is the CTO, *of course* he will only tell you generalized concepts" and "My guess is that the 'british team' is not actual employees of Amiga Inc but that they may have some form of contract similar to Hyperion's contract for OS4"?That sure sounds to me like someone took the content of the mail to be genuine. You don't speculate on the nature of employment of "the team" if you are of the opinion that "the team" doesn't exist, and the mail talking about it is a fake. And you don't write "he is the CTO" about the writer of an email (the one doing the telling of generalized conepts) unless one does indeed believe the writer to be the CTO.Either that, or one has huge problems communicating.(Oh, and without the benefit of rigorous statistics, but with the benefit of just having read through the 100 comments the thread generated, I'd say that the majority of unique commenters actually treated the mail as genuine)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 361 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 13:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 354 (Bernie Meyer):
I'm saying that he couldn't possibly know wether it was real or not without verifying it somehow. He got the supposed e-mail from a posting ANN.lu, which means that he never saw the actual e-mail with the headers and the details of it's origin. So, since he didn't verify it's authenticity nor have ever had access to the actual e-mail, he wasn't in a position to tell wether it was real or not to begin with, now was he? Then why does he insist that it is real when both the supposed author of the e-mail denies it and Adam Ceremuga, AKA "cheesegrate" has even stepped forward and admitted to the forgery? From a purely objective point of view, where is the reason to believe that it would be genuine?

And no, it did not look genuine either. Fleecy always uses a "8-)" smiley at the beginning of his letters, not ":-)", and it was the same kind of spelling mistakes that cheesegrate does in general. Furthermore, the story that they would have started an english subsidiary didn't sound very plausible either.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 362 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 13:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 360 (Bernie Meyer):
I see that you conviniently left out the post where I stated that none of my posts was meant to say that the e-mail was authentic.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 363 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 13:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 359 (Don Cox):
I know --- and on the balance of probabilities, I would probably go for cheesegrate being the author, rather than Fleecy.However, I find myself incapable of ruling out a scenario where, having seen and laughed at a genuine Fleecy mail, cheesegrate then simply stepped forward claiming authorship. It's just another kind of hoax, and I'd say a much more subtle and thus more funny one. Which, given the need for deniability later on, would have been seen as Godsent by whoever wrote AI's legal filings at the time.As I said, I don't consider that the *likely* scenario --- but if I were a betting man, I wouldn't give you any kind of exorbitant odds on the mail being authored by Fleecy. Probably no more than 3:1.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 364 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 13:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 361 (Sammy Nordström):
Yes, I speculated on the idea that it was real, which is why I later tried to clarify that I did not mean to say that it was authentic.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 365 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 13:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 362 (Sammy Nordström):
So why *did* you speculate on the nature of the contract of a non-existing team, the only mention of which was in a faked (according to you) email?And Sammy, you accuse someone of lying for saying "I believe this mail to be genuine". Whether the mail is indeed genuine doesn't matter for that. If an anorexic says "I believe I am fat", then you can't accuse them of lying simply because they are, in fact, underweight.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 366 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 13:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 365 (Bernie Meyer):
So, if I stab you in the back with a knife and then get arrested and prosecuted, would I get off the hook if I simply say "I believe it's ok to stab people in the back with a knife"?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 367 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 13:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 365 (Bernie Meyer):
>So why *did* you speculate on the nature of the contract of a non-existing
>team, the only mention of which was in a faked (according to you) email?

Isn't that a bit like asking; why do people speculate? At that time, I knew just as little about wether it was real as I knew wether it was fake. When I said that I didn't mean to say that it was authentic, I was speculating on the possibility that it was a fake too, now wasn't I?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 368 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 13:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 366 (Sammy Nordström):
Nope, because your belief doesn't matter --- it's sticking a knife into my back that you'd be accused of.You are accusing BB of lying, and you justify this with his statement "I believe the mail to be from Fleecy Moss". The only way that's a lie is if BB did *not* believe it at the time.It doesn't matter whether he *shouldn't* have believed it. It doesn't matter whether he was right believing it. What matters is whether he believed it --- just as in your hypothetical example, what matters is whether you stuck a knife in my back or not.On the other hand, yes, you could turn up at the trial and say "I believed it was OK to stick knifes in people's backs". At that point, the question of whether that's a truthful statement or not may become relevant --- if yes, you'll probably end up in the psychiatric ward (as a danger to the public), if not, in prison. But that's after your guilt for the deed you have been accused of has been established --- something you have so far spectacularly failed to do in the case of BB.Many good and intelligent people believed the mail to be genuine. And few had more reason to *want* to believe it than BB, so it is not surprising that BB might have ended up believing it. WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU TO CLAIM OTHERWISE?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 369 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 09-Sep-2004 13:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 367 (Sammy Nordström):
Ah, so you *didn't* recognize it as a fake. And in fact, when first commenting, you chose to not only do so from a position of taking it as genuine, but had so little (if any) doubt that, while you preface your speculation regarding the contract with "My guess" and "may", you didn't once, in three paragraphs, express any kind of ambivalency regarding the autheticity of the mail. None whatsoever.And you still maintain that BB lied when he stated that he believed it to be from Fleecy? Seriously?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 370 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 14:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 368 (Bernie Meyer):
>You are accusing BB of lying, and you justify this with his statement "I
>believe the mail to be from Fleecy Moss". The only way that's a lie is if BB
>did *not* believe it at the time.

But don't you get it? Passing or making use of forged evidence is a criminal act in itself and when you insist that the forged evidence is believed to be true even when there is nothing factual available to support such theory, the one who the evidence is supposed to originate from denies it and the one who actually made the forged evidence has even confessed in public, it's perfectly logical to question the intent.

It's one thing to submit the evidence to the court in good faith, which even that can be questioned since one could successfully argue that he had every reason to verify it's authenticity first. But what amazes me the most is that he insists on believing in it's authenticity even when it has been confirmed by the supposed author to not be real and when the real author has confessed to the forgery. Why? Please explain it to me, Bernie. Why?
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 371 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 09-Sep-2004 14:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 369 (Bernie Meyer):
>Ah, so you *didn't* recognize it as a fake.

Again, I didn't recognize it as real either.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 372 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 09-Sep-2004 18:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 370 (Sammy Nordström):
Passing forged evidence is *NOT* a crime if:
1) You are not the forger.
2) You HONESTLY did not know that the evidence is forged.

1) is valid for the specific case, do you have *ANY* evidence to prove that 2
was not valid for Bill Buck at that time?
If not, your point does NOT stand...
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 373 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 09-Sep-2004 18:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 368 (Bernie Meyer):
We are getting way off topic but "ignorance of the law is no defence" is a basic legal principle.

(Yes, sometimes equity overules this, but we are talking basic principles)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 374 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 10-Sep-2004 06:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 370 (Sammy Nordström):
>But what amazes me the most is that he insists on believing in it's
>authenticity even when it has been confirmed by the supposed author to not be
>real and when the real author has confessed to the forgery. Why? Please
>explain it to me, Bernie. Why?

One reason could be that Fleecy might have, given the case, motivation to lie about it (the email could have been damaging to their case) - hence Buck would have a motivation not to believe him and continue with his own beliefs. The so called confession by a forger wasn't verified in any way AFAIK either. The issue is far muddier than you paint it to be.

Given that, I have maintained my personal view all throughout that the email probably - in hindsight - was a fake. But we have no way of knowing for sure.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 375 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 10-Sep-2004 07:13 GMT
Arguing about shades of grey is pointless.

We are splitting Hares and the Buck stops here.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 376 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 10-Sep-2004 13:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 372 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
>Passing forged evidence is *NOT* a crime if:
>1) You are not the forger.

Beeep! Wrong answer! Try again.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 377 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 10-Sep-2004 16:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 374 (Janne):
Again, they hadn't even seen any mail, just a posting on ANN.lu from some unknown individual that was supposed to be the contents of a mail. Such evidence shouldn't be submitted to the court to begin with, even if they "believed" that it was genuine, since they *knew* that there was quite a considerable possibility that it was not real and that there was *no* possibility that it would ever be able to prove anything.

And even if we consider the possibility that the e-mail was real, wouldn't that have been a great opportunity for them to nail Fleecy for perjury? But no, not even when Fleecy testified that he did not write it did they show any interest in trying to verify the e-mail's authenticity. All they did was repeating that they still believed that the mail was from Fleecy without anything what so ever to support such theory. If it was because they had a reason to believe that Fleecy was not being truthful to the court, then why not tell all about that reason to the court?

I'm sorry but there really is only one logical explanation for all this and I think everyone in here is able to figure out what that explanation is on their own.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 378 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 11-Sep-2004 05:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 377 (Sammy Nordström):
>I'm sorry but there really is only one logical explanation for all this and I think everyone in here is able
>to figure out what that explanation is on their own.

...that there is no point discussing anything with you? :)

Seriously, though. Internet postings were used by both sides as "testimony" without presenting any proof as to their accuracy (other than people's word). I'm having a hard time making it such an a brilliant example of Bush's dishonesty and failure as you paint it to be.

You should have looked elsewhere in your original comment, two or three hundred of them ago. I'm sure there would be far less controversial failures of his to discuss if need be.
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 379 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 11-Sep-2004 05:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 378 (Janne):
Buck's. Not Bush's. :)
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 380 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 11-Sep-2004 17:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 376 (Sammy Nordström):
Beep wrong answer? Read the rest of my comment you idiot...
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 381 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by Interesting on 14-Sep-2004 15:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (David):
>>>Interesting how he claims Genesi screwed him. the real reason is that Mr Hunt was caught with his fingers in the till, which is instant dismissaland and he should be thankful that Genesi is not taking him to court and see him do porridge.

Genesi are not the bad guys where Mr Hunt is concerned.<<

It's real funny how Genesi is never the bad guy....but yet all these people are comming forth having problems with them!
Interesting thread on Amiga.org : Comment 382 of 382ANN.lu
Posted by JKD on 14-Sep-2004 18:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 381 (Interesting):
Woohoo...all hail the return of 'Interesting' ;-)
Anonymous, there are 382 items in your selection (but only 32 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 382]
Back to Top