Sunbeltblog comments
Interesting I know Gary. (remember convo well as he told me well Kibel rhymes with Libel.)
I Didn't know he was being retained by DR. Interesting.
I wonder what "results" Gary Kibel could possibly mean. Strange, this proposed letter appears to take the tone of "We know where you live, Patrick Jordan, so watch your back." That sounds a lot like intimidation. Could a message like this possibly result in Kibel's disbarment?
Dave, that is exactly how I take it as well. Sadly this has been going on since the beginning in all forms of business. Hopefully into "intimidation" trick will only hurt the image of DR in court.
I doubt it's anything that could get him disbarred. Using a PI to find out the source of a company's critics so that you can then send a cease and desist letter is hardly illegal.
I found a doc in the pile that called Ben a "fanatic", too. I'll have to dig it out...
re: adware apologists
direct revenue is being taken to task for creating/distributing SPYWARE, not adware...
Yay, lets argue semantics for another 100 posts...
Someone call Spitzer and tell him it's all off.
why would it be all off? they created/distributed spyware, he's after them for their spyware... seems fine to me...
It was a joke...
re: adware apologist?
What!? The discussion on the original question "Is bundling adware inherently bad" was a great question but the subject was continually hijacked by "zealots" citing how bad that particular install was. (which everyone agreed it was) Whatever.
Is TRUSTe an organization of adware apologists then? 
tC
(not an apologist)
Oh great, let's all play another semantics game, shall we?
Count me out.
I particularly loved the way the original question, "Is bundling adware inherently bad," was entirely rhetorical, since the poster was already predisposed to a particular answer, and that was that. (See his first and his last post in the thread. Take out all of the posts in between, and you end up with a guy who is essentially just talking to himself and reaffirming his predetermined conclusion.)
Hi Kurt!
hmmm - yes, i suppose if you only look at 2 of the comments, both from the same person, then it could look very much like someone talking to themself...
Uh huh.
Nice way -- once again -- to avoid the point that I was making, which was that your conclusion was predetermined, which rendered your question rhetorical, which in turn negated any real debate, because your mind was made up in the first place anyway.
So it could just as well have been someone talking to himself. Same difference, in your case.
yeah, right... as if debates only occur between people who haven't made up their minds yet...
generally debates occur between people who HAVE made up their minds and don't agree with each other... each person tries to convince the other (or the audience or a judge) that the other person is wrong... and rhetorical devices are perfectly valid in debates...
Again, you are avoiding the obvious fact that you started the thread with what you tried to pass of as a neutral question: "Is bundling adware inherently bad?" -- but in reality was not neutral at all.
A better and much more honest way to have begun that the type of debate to which you are referring would have been something along the lines of, "I think it is perfectly fine to bundle adware," and explain why. In that way, you establish your position, which is then open to debate. But you didn't do it that way. Instead, as far as you were concerned, it was a rather disingenuous, open-and-shut discussion from the very beginning.
LOL, this kurt guy is just too funny.
1) although i posted the first comment, i did not start the conversation... a comment is a response to the article one is commenting on...
2) i *genuinely* wanted to know what alex's answer to that question was, in spite of already having my own opinion, because it seemed to me that we may differ on a fundamental level (and it turns out we differ on a level even more fundamental than that question would have revealed)...
3) someone who consistently twists everything i say may want to think twice about calling my honesty into question...
"someone who consistently twists everything i say may want to think twice about calling my honesty into question..."
Heh. As if you have any room to talk about others' twisting things around.
i'm not going to play this game with you... you can go find someone or something else to amuse yourself with...
Fair enough. I'm not much for games, either -- especially semantic ones, as should be evident from our previous debate.
I am still going over all documents from Bens site and have 4 that deal with me dating back to 2004. Very soon, I will have a special page for my favorite transponder gang that will cover the emails along with the links to the write ups that relate to them. Also, since they were nice enough to think about me all these years, I am also putting together a new spreadsheet of all their sites for all to see and remember
As I like to say
" One must know the past in order to understand the present, if one is to change the future"
webhelper 2005
Commenting by HaloScan
