Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Paul Christoforo vs. The World or How to stop worrying and love the internet bomb

12728293032

Posts

  • valhalla130valhalla130 Od's blood Sailing a longshipRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?
    Why?

    Yes! Why defend your ridiculous claims when you know they are ridiculous?

    straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man

  • THESPOOKYTHESPOOKY There's no room for "gods" in my town. Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
    There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.

    *yawn*

    You done yet, buddy?

    Ghost whistler has only just begun (to use the word 'tacitly").

    THESPOOKY on
    4pPO9UB.png
  • SoulshinerSoulshiner Registered User
    If you want to go into a froth spitting rage, just check out the dead pixel interview...

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?
    Why?

    Because you keep bringing it up.

    I am going to repost this, because I am still waiting for a response.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I'm going to guess it's a sternly-worded letter to the editor.

  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    KalTorak wrote:
    You're not making any sense.

    Dave clearly had a bad customer experience. Is he or is he not allowed to tell anyone about it?

    Is it OK if he just tells his friends? What if one of his friends ran a gaming blog? Is he then not allowed to tell that person?
    I didn't say that Dave didn't have a bad customer experience nor intimate any such thing. He can quite happily tell people about whatever he likes, but that doesn't excuse choosing to pass on what was sent to him and him alone to whomever he likes. That he can physically do so, because a computer lets him cc it to Mr Penny Arcade, doesn't actually make it morally acceptable.
    I woukld also suggest that pretending you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make you look smart; it's pretty facile.

    Wow .. just wow .. "He can tell anyone he wants about this abusive service he got .. he just can't send out concrete proof of it happening, that's over the line".
    Without a paper trail and a way to prove that this outlandishly ridiculous event occurred it could all be hearsay and slander ... hell yeah I'm going to include the original documents if I'm going to call someone's douchebaggery out. How does that not make sense to you?
    YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
    There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.

    He posted the e-mail of the customer service and PR person for a company. That person is public-facing and the e-mail address is one used to communicate with members of the public. When Mike expressly said not to be nasty once it became clear some people were being nasty, I don't know how you can allege he meant the opposite tacitly, unless you are engaging in conspiracy theory.

    I also don't see how there's no need to share this information - the only practical recourse the public has from bad customer service is to shine a light on creeps like Christoforo.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    bowen wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.
    which word?

    All of them.

    8->

  • valhalla130valhalla130 Od's blood Sailing a longshipRegistered User regular
    Stop feeding the troll, guys. lol

  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    The thing that fascinates me more than anything else about the moral end of this is the constant state of flux, of vascillation going on. There will be this questioning of whether the response to Paul is right and moral, people will want to call off the dogs, and then they'll find out about the latest thing Paul did and go 'okay, I take it back', at least for a little while until people start questioning themselves again, and this cycle just keeps going on and on and on.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • fugacityfugacity Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

    This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

  • Smaug6Smaug6 Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Gosling wrote:
    The thing that fascinates me more than anything else about the moral end of this is the constant state of flux, of vascillation going on. There will be this questioning of whether the response to Paul is right and moral, people will want to call off the dogs, and then they'll find out about the latest thing Paul did and go 'okay, I take it back', at least for a little while until people start questioning themselves again, and this cycle just keeps going on and on and on.

    I was just saying this exact same thing. Its ridiculous. I almost feel like there can be no calm rational look at whats happening right now because Paul keeps doing ridiculous audacious things. And then everyone just hates him more, undermining any sympathy or rational response to what happened here.

    Smaug6 on
    steam_sig.png
  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    fugacity wrote:
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

    This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

    ???

    I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • mr-razzcocksmr-razzcocks Registered User regular
    Reading Rhallo's post, i feel a similar way. I think Mike could have shown some restraint and played it a little cooler than he did, after all he knows full well the kind of influence he has, but I have no sympathy for Paul or his company, by the sounds of it his entire operation was a disaster waiting to happen, and he simply will not stop being an idiot, even after it all.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Khoo made an interesting post about this situation and tracking a viral incident:

    http://penny-arcade.com/khoo/viral

  • lordlundarlordlundar Registered User regular
    And now Paul is trying Extortion.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114994-Ocean-Marketing-Attempts-To-Extort-Former-Client

    At this point, he can be weeping in the corner begging it to stop and I personally wouldn't give a damn.

  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    lordlundar wrote:
    And now Paul is trying Extortion.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114994-Ocean-Marketing-Attempts-To-Extort-Former-Client

    At this point, he can be weeping in the corner begging it to stop and I personally wouldn't give a damn.

    Yeah, he backed off of that pretty quick. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/nw1vm/ama_the_guy_who_replaced_paul_christoforo_and_is/
    UPDATE: Mr. Christoforo has very recently become very forthcoming and helpful regarding a variety of digital assets we requested he return a few days ago (as mentioned above in detail). We thank him for his renewed helpfulness.

    Cambiata on
    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • RhalloTonnyRhalloTonny Of the BrownlandsRegistered User regular
    Reading Rhallo's post, i feel a similar way. I think Mike could have shown some restraint and played it a little cooler than he did, after all he knows full well the kind of influence he has, but I have no sympathy for Paul or his company, by the sounds of it his entire operation was a disaster waiting to happen, and he simply will not stop being an idiot, even after it all.

    I think it really just comes down to what you, personally, would or wouldn't do if you were in Mike's situation. While I think ultimately, Mike was/is in the clear, and actually think Paul deserves what he got (outside of any particular threats to his family that may or may not have happened), I do notice that when I put myself in Mike's shoes, I don't know if I would have done the same thing. Of course, that's just me wondering, not meant as a slight or judgement toward Mike or Dave, of course. It just boils down to personal preference.

    !
  • ElderlycrawfishElderlycrawfish Registered User regular
    Finished skimming through the reddit AMA, and I can't stop saying that the new PR guy is pretty rad.

    I'm thinking of hiring Mr. Chiullan to represent me the next time I upset Mrs. Crawfish.

    ....I might have to keep him on retainer.

    PSN/Steam - Elderlycrawfish
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    lordlundar wrote:
    And now Paul is trying Extortion.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114994-Ocean-Marketing-Attempts-To-Extort-Former-Client

    At this point, he can be weeping in the corner begging it to stop and I personally wouldn't give a damn.

    You have the power Mike Please make it stop?

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • THESPOOKYTHESPOOKY There's no room for "gods" in my town. Registered User regular
    Reading Rhallo's post, i feel a similar way. I think Mike could have shown some restraint and played it a little cooler than he did, after all he knows full well the kind of influence he has, but I have no sympathy for Paul or his company, by the sounds of it his entire operation was a disaster waiting to happen, and he simply will not stop being an idiot, even after it all.

    I think it really just comes down to what you, personally, would or wouldn't do if you were in Mike's situation. While I think ultimately, Mike was/is in the clear, and actually think Paul deserves what he got (outside of any particular threats to his family that may or may not have happened), I do notice that when I put myself in Mike's shoes, I don't know if I would have done the same thing. Of course, that's just me wondering, not meant as a slight or judgement toward Mike or Dave, of course. It just boils down to personal preference.

    A super-fair statement. I have to admit that I probably would've done something worse. :P

    4pPO9UB.png
  • LanrutconLanrutcon Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    bowen wrote:
    bowen wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.
    which word?

    All of them.

    8->

    Oh the lols.

    Quoted from the new PR guy:
    Spoiler:

    So please, really: defend Paul some more.

    Lanrutcon on
    Capture.jpg~original
    Currently playing: FFXIV: ARR and Sharepoint.
  • fugacityfugacity Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    fugacity wrote:
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

    This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

    ???

    I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

    Sorry, if this was spoken I think the satirical intent would be clear. I wasn't trying to insult you but those who would attach 10 lines of copyright boilerplate to their every email (or companies where the mail server does this) in some attempt to make every email correspondence with them company property. Cause screw that. GW may have been able to counter your argument with this approach but it's also BS, just hard to counter BS.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    This thread has gone full retard.

    Please stop being retarded.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    fugacity wrote:
    Cambiata wrote:
    fugacity wrote:
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

    This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

    ???

    I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

    Sorry, if this was spoken I think the satirical intent would be clear. I wasn't trying to insult you but those who would attach 10 lines of copyright boilerplate to their every email (or companies where the mail server does this) in some attempt to make every email correspondence with them company property. Cause screw that. GW may have been able to counter your argument with this approach but it's also BS, just hard to counter BS.

    Company property is not the same as public.

  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    fugacity wrote:
    Cambiata wrote:
    fugacity wrote:
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

    This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

    ???

    I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

    Sorry, if this was spoken I think the satirical intent would be clear. I wasn't trying to insult you but those who would attach 10 lines of copyright boilerplate to their every email (or companies where the mail server does this) in some attempt to make every email correspondence with them company property. Cause screw that. GW may have been able to counter your argument with this approach but it's also BS, just hard to counter BS.

    Company property is not the same as public.

    I think that's what he's saying, that because so many corporate emails are appended with "This belongs to [huge corporation] and may not be reproduced" that means that they aren't public.

    However, the times I've sent emails to customers, or as a customer recieved emails from executives I was complaining to, I never saw a "this email belongs to the corp. and cannot be reproduced." Messages like that are on internal emails a lot, but NOT on emails that go out to customers. Because, again, customer service representatives, from the lowest to the highest, are perfectly aware that what they say to a customer is already public.

    Those that aren't complete muppets also treat internal emails as if they will be viewed by anyone... because if you act like a douche to another department, and then you're VP ends up seeing it, then you look like someone they no longer wish to employ. That's not to say that some people don't still stick their foot in their mouth internally - people think they can be more candid with internals. But no one considers an email to a customer anything other than public fodder which can be reproduced anywhere. This is a matter of self-preservation, both for the company but more importantly for the person who's sending the email.

    Cambiata on
    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    bowen wrote:
    devCharles wrote:
    It's so rare to see people's ineptness actually come back to bite them in the ass in the business world with regards to marketing. You usually have to go so far, be so stupid to not be able to explain away your own foolish decisions in something that is supposed to appeal to people in a subjective manner. Personally, I'm just glad that somebody is actually being held responsible for their clearly terrible approach to doing business. That soapbox Mike has is substantial, and it's always great to see when he uses it for good (on top of child's play of course.)

    Well, to be honest, most non-sociopaths will actually apologize because they realize they wronged someone.

    Well, when a sociopath does it it's different because they do no wrong, and fuck you I'm not apologizing. He'll apologize eventually, but he won't mean it.

    I wouldn't necessarily disagree that this guy might have sociopathic tendencies, but I've seen this style of business before, and sometimes it's a calculated way people just are set in doing business. I've seen it a lot in my work, which, granted, is personal and not backed up in statistical formulation, but has largely shaped my feelings towards customer relations. People are told that you need to do x, y, or z in a certain brand of business, and if it's engrained strongly, you'll have people believing it's god's own truth. You see it in some marketing outfits, unfortunately, where bravado is seen as more important than speaking honestly to customers. This dude may be a sociopath or perhaps just a moron (maybe both,) but I've seen this kind of braggadocio approach before as an approach some marketing firms take from a calculated standpoint.

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    I think that's what he's saying, that because so many corporate emails are appended with "This belongs to [huge corporation] and may not be reproduced" that means that they aren't public.

    However, the times I've sent emails to customers, or as a customer recieved emails from executives I was complaining to, I never saw a "this email belongs to the corp. and cannot be reproduced." Messages like that are on internal emails a lot, but NOT on emails that go out to customers. Because, again, customer service representatives, from the lowest to the highest, are perfectly aware that what they say to a customer is already public.

    Those that aren't complete muppets also treat internal emails as if they will be viewed by anyone... because if you act like a douche to another department, and then you're VP ends up seeing it, then you look like someone they no longer wish to employ. That's not to say that some people don't still stick their foot in their mouth internally - people think they can be more candid with internals. But no one considers an email to a customer anything other than public fodder which can be reproduced anywhere. This is a matter of self-preservation, both for the company but more importantly for the person who's sending the email.

    Just because they put that stuff there doesn't mean anything. You could have a legal document that someone could sign away their bill of rights, but it's not legal at all.

    Those "This belongs to XYZ" is basically "If I sent this to you by accident (wrong recipient) you can't use this information and if you do, you risk a lawsuit." Now... if a party involved in the conversation decides to share it, that's another thing entirely.

  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    The only reason Dave forwarded Mike the email in the first place was Paul's claim that they would be at PAX. And knowing Penny Arcade's history of being extremely straight with its fanbase, Dave knew this wasn't the kind of person Mike would want to have at PAX.
    There are probably quite a few people attending PAX that others would rather weren't there. He can ban whomever he likes, but frankly I find it pretty short sighted. Especially as Krahulik has gone out of his way to deliberately wind him up.
    Forwarding the email is one thing, plastering it over the internet is quite another.

  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?
    Why?

    Yes! Why defend your ridiculous claims when you know they are ridiculous?

    straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man
    Don't keep throwing them at me then.

  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    Kipling217 wrote:
    Kipling217 wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?
    Why?

    Because you keep bringing it up.

    I am going to repost this, because I am still waiting for a response.

    I don't keep mentioning it at all. It's irrelevant how, it isn't the issue. The issue is plastering someone's private messages over the internet. Arguing that it's somehow fair warning to others out there is absurd. You want to complain about his behaviour as a business report him to the authorities so he can't do business anymore. If you don't have a version of the Trading Standards Office in the colonies get one.

  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    kaliyama wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    You're not making any sense.

    Dave clearly had a bad customer experience. Is he or is he not allowed to tell anyone about it?

    Is it OK if he just tells his friends? What if one of his friends ran a gaming blog? Is he then not allowed to tell that person?
    I didn't say that Dave didn't have a bad customer experience nor intimate any such thing. He can quite happily tell people about whatever he likes, but that doesn't excuse choosing to pass on what was sent to him and him alone to whomever he likes. That he can physically do so, because a computer lets him cc it to Mr Penny Arcade, doesn't actually make it morally acceptable.
    I woukld also suggest that pretending you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make you look smart; it's pretty facile.

    Wow .. just wow .. "He can tell anyone he wants about this abusive service he got .. he just can't send out concrete proof of it happening, that's over the line".
    Without a paper trail and a way to prove that this outlandishly ridiculous event occurred it could all be hearsay and slander ... hell yeah I'm going to include the original documents if I'm going to call someone's douchebaggery out. How does that not make sense to you?
    YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
    There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.

    He posted the e-mail of the customer service and PR person for a company. That person is public-facing and the e-mail address is one used to communicate with members of the public. When Mike expressly said not to be nasty once it became clear some people were being nasty, I don't know how you can allege he meant the opposite tacitly, unless you are engaging in conspiracy theory.

    I also don't see how there's no need to share this information - the only practical recourse the public has from bad customer service is to shine a light on creeps like Christoforo.

    Then Mike knows fuck all about the internet. If he thinks a feeble 'dont be mean' request is going to have any effect after posting all this online then he's incredibly naive. Let's not kid ourselves here. Especially given his 'I was bullied as a kid' diatribe. Whether you were bullied as a kid is irrelevant.

  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.
    So if you were engaged in a messy divorce and i got hold of emails between you and your lawyer, I could post them on the interweb? No matter if they contain, for example, the names of your kids or whatever other info might be deemed sensitive if not illegal to show to the world? That would be ok, because it's legal?

  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    Gosling wrote:
    The thing that fascinates me more than anything else about the moral end of this is the constant state of flux, of vascillation going on. There will be this questioning of whether the response to Paul is right and moral, people will want to call off the dogs, and then they'll find out about the latest thing Paul did and go 'okay, I take it back', at least for a little while until people start questioning themselves again, and this cycle just keeps going on and on and on.
    the moral end of this is not in a constant state of flux. Anyone that's having a hard time understanding the rights and wrongs of this probably shouldn't be on the internet.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.
    So if you were engaged in a messy divorce and i got hold of emails between you and your lawyer, I could post them on the interweb? No matter if they contain, for example, the names of your kids or whatever other info might be deemed sensitive if not illegal to show to the world? That would be ok, because it's legal?

    Legal correspondence is protected differently than standard business correspondence... not really a fair comparison.

  • CambiataCambiata Social Justice Rogue Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.
    So if you were engaged in a messy divorce and i got hold of emails between you and your lawyer, I could post them on the interweb? No matter if they contain, for example, the names of your kids or whatever other info might be deemed sensitive if not illegal to show to the world? That would be ok, because it's legal?

    You understand what privledge is, right? Privlege is a specific legal right extended to lawyers. Not everyone has privledge. Certainly customer service reps do not, lols.

    Good lord, hon, you don't OK over there? Having an aneurism, maybe? I haven't seen a defense this lame since Christoforo declared that it was Mike Krahulik's fault that he took a swing at him.

    -Tal wrote:
    If you don't develop Stockholm Syndrome, it's not a real RPG.
    Steam
    Origin ID: jazzmess
    Wishlist
  • ghost whistlerghost whistler Registered User
    Lanrutcon wrote:
    bowen wrote:
    bowen wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    This was. a "proper legal channel."
    It was legal, it was not proper.

    That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.
    which word?

    All of them.

    8->

    Oh the lols.

    Quoted from the new PR guy:
    Spoiler:

    So please, really: defend Paul some more.
    I haven't once defended Paul. Please accurately demonstrate where you think I have.

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    Anyone that's having a hard time understanding the rights and wrongs of this probably shouldn't be on the internet.

    So you're gonna cancel your subscription with your ISP then?

    We're all still waiting for you to explain how a conversation between a company rep and a customer is private. No personal information of either party was contained within, or posted to PA's front page. The entire contents were for all intents and purposes the official position of Ocean Marketing on customer complaints. That's not a private conversation.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    You're doing nothing but sputtering about how everyone's conduct is wrong without a single thing to back it up other than "I don't like it." Your analogies are off-base and you change your argument* practically mid-sentence. I don't know if you're a troll or just willfully ignoring everyone else's points, but either way you're obviously not interested in having a good-faith discussion.


    *generous usage of the word

  • valhalla130valhalla130 Od's blood Sailing a longshipRegistered User regular
    This is why we can't have nice things. Someone always has to come and shit over everything.

This discussion has been closed.