Glad to hear things is well, I got happy times here too....the kids started back in school this week and I got a whole pile of upgrades to play with and a review that's late. 
An annoying point about [H]
- Thread starter Ostsol
- Start date
- Status
But a profitable life I presume.FrgMstr said:digitalwanderer said:...I got a whole pile of upgrades to play with and a review that's late.
Story of my life.
Guys, if you have questions for Kyle about him, his website and his actions, it is best that you post them over at his forums, not here as that is deemed inappropriate. Besides, he'll have a few extra hits this way
Reverend said:But a profitable life I presume.
Guys, if you have questions for Kyle about him, his website and his actions, it is best that you post them over at his forums, not here as that is deemed inappropriate. Besides, he'll have a few extra hits this way
I seem to remember a certain banning spree that would make this a little harder...
FrgMstr said:
Well god forbid you actually read what is there? I said i do not know about US law, but in Sweden you'd been prosecuted for breaking the law. And if you're so freaking great about US law. Is it legal for you to use other people's personal info and print it on your website without their agreement?
Yeah i know you stand by what you do, i remember you were to "smart" to use 3dmark03 so you just talked BS about it encouraging others not to use it because all you understood was the numbers at the end.
FrgMstr
Newcomer
Unit01 said:
Well I am not in Sweden and we did nothing even close to illegal here in the USA. So your argument is moot.
As for your 3DMark03 remark, I really don't understand what you are even saying. If 3DMark03 is what you want to use for evaluating video cards and coming to conclusions so be it. We have millions of gamers that rely on us for our opinions and we did not feel 3DMark03 to be a good evaluation tool so we did not use it and we told people why.
YOu are just coming across as a hater. If you are going to argue at least come up with something fresh to hate me for, not this garbage 1 and 2 years old. I will not respond to you again unless you find something to hate me for that I have done recently. All of the arguements you are making have been addressed multiple times.
Ooooh, a challenge!FrgMstr said:
FrgMstr said:
I didn't know you cared...
I'm touched... Considering that you'd already had it up for several months before they asked you to remove it, and it had been up so long it was stale, really, it was always difficult for me to see why you cared about removing it--since everybody who was going to read it had already read it by that time and you'd made your point. I doubt if anyone would even have noticed had you quietly taken it down.
Yes, they sued you after you sued them, was my point. What, did you think they were bluffing in their original request? Even if they had been bluffing, your "pre-emptive" suit strategy certainly put an end to that, didn't it?...
Of all the things I've ever heard you accused of being, Kyle, "bashful" isn't one of them...
Certainly not, as your own official "piehole" at [H] has offered up lots of colorful "information" on this affair right from the start. In fact, if not for [H], who in the general public would even have known about your disputes with IL? Certainly not me.I don't see any "bad guys," here, Kyle, and I suppose that's the difference between us. Given the choice between quietly removing a months-old article which had already made its point, and which had already been read by everyone who was going to read it, and the choice of launching an anti-IL publicity campaign with [H] and then throwing a "pre-emptive" suit at the company and publicizing that, too, I just feel *sorry* for you for making the choices that you made. Your own choices, as much as anything IL has done, have made your bed for you in this instance. In expressing my opinion on this matter from the start I've always tried to make that clear, as well indicate a genuine hope that you fellas could find a way to settle your differences prior to going to court. (I'm not surprised that both parties have to date declined my advice, though...
)I don't think you guys are "bad guys" any more than I think IL are "bad guys" for finding investors dumb enough to invest in their schemes. The thing is that IL isn't unique or unusual in the world of technology start-ups looking for VC money.
The people who invest in these things are adults and go into them with their eyes wide open and with the knowledge that they may *lose* their money. They know this, and they invest anyway--and with hundreds if not thousands of companies like IL all over the world, every day. VC's look at it as a seeding process--throw enough seed out there (money) and eventually one of your bets has to pay off. I agree with you that this isn't necessarily very smart, but I agree with them that they have the right to do anything with their money that they see fit to do. And that includes investing with IL if they so choose. It's their money, so why not?
Your mistake here from the start, as it seemed to me, was in wedging yourself uninvited between IL and its investors, and presuming to speak for IL investors before learning whether or not they were unhappy with the way IL was spending their investments. It should have occurred to you that since these investors were investing their money in the company (assuming that you yourself were not an IL investor), they might not have been excited by your efforts to smear the company they were investing in before they could even *find out* whether they'd wasted their money or not. By smearing IL in the manner that you chose through the [H] publicity, you were seemingly attempting to make it impossible for those people to see any return on their investments in IL.
I've never understood why this was apparently something that never occurred to you when you wrote your first IL article last year. In short, your publicity contained not only the potential to damage IL, but also the potential to damage the investors who had put money into the company up to that time. I could never imagine how you might've believed that IL investors might have championed your efforts to smear the company they had invested in, as you weren't just hurting IL, you were by extension also hurting them as IL investors. But apparently you felt you could smear the company prior to it launching its products without somehow hurting IL investors in the process. I'll concede that somehow that makes sense to you, but I can't fathom it.
Certainly--I believe and accept this completely. You will without a doubt have to live with the consequences and accept them, and I'm glad to see that you understand this. You certainly are not "wrong" in my eyes--just like the IL investors, I'm assuming you went into this with your eyes wide open and as an adult are prepared to suffer the consequences, should they manifest negatively for you at the end.
As always, I hope that you fellas can work this out, but both sides are going to have to compromise for that to happen, going to have to give up something they feel entitled to in order to reach an agreeement, and I have to say it doesn't seem a likely outcome based on the events publicized to date.
But, good luck to all of you nevertheless!
FrgMstr
Newcomer
WaltC said:
I am standing up for rights granted to me by the Constitution of the United States. I cared about it because I was being repeatedly threatened over removing something that was the truth and mine. Apparently you are not familiar with the document. It can be found here in its original glory.
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html
I have read a lot of things you have written and consider you to be an intelligent person, but your statements above simply offend me and make me question your understanding of the structure of what makes America what it is. So many men and women have given their lives so that we can enjoy the freedoms our country has earned for itself. All I can say is that I am glad that the founders of our country were not of your character, as I doubt we would be having the conversation now.
It is sad that you don't see the forest for the trees.
And yes, I stopped reading your long-winded comment after the paragraph I quoted. At that point I lost respect for you and your opinions.
Haha, hey WaltC, so basically you think that journalists should never stand behind their work after it is considered outdated? You think that us journalists should also captiulate to any corporation who threatens to sue us over a piece of journalism that we write?
While Kyle's article may not be the "Unsafe at any Speed" of the web generation, it is a solid piece of journalism with plenty of factual evidence. If the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, or Washington Post were to have published something like this, do you think IL would have threatened to sue them? Of course not, because IL would lose, just as IL will probably lose its suit with Kyle. However, because Kyle doesn't have the monetary backing as the above mentioned newspapers, IL obviously thought that they could easily threaten Kyle with a long and drawn out lawsuit (costing Kyle thousands upon thousands of dollars). I think the action taken by Kyle was very smart (my father is a lawyer, and I have grown up around the business), as it will bring the suit to Texas (and that way Kyle doesn't have to pay even bigger bucks if the suit was located in Florida).
So you basically think that because a company may have more financial resources than some website, that they have the right to strongarm us if we write something they don't agree with? After reading Kyle's article, I found nothing truly defamatory towards IL, I just see a very poor business record of the people starting it. This stuff is on the public record.
Truthfully, I am glad Kyle stood up to them, as it may very well be a landmark case. Kyle will probably win, and if he does, then it will set a precedent that will be hard to overturn. This precedent will provide a lot of extra protection for smaller sites like mine that may stumble upon some bit of nastiness that a company perpetrated and report it.
Keep it up Kyle. As I said before, while I may not agree with everything you do or say, I still have a lot of respect for what you have built and the type of stance you are taking here. I am not a cheerleader for [H], nor do I tattoo/shave/pierce it on my body, but being a webmaster of a hardware site I know what you go through on a daily basis. Now, if I can only get my traffic up to where your's is...
Josh Walrath
PenStar Systems, LLC.
www.penstarsys.com
While Kyle's article may not be the "Unsafe at any Speed" of the web generation, it is a solid piece of journalism with plenty of factual evidence. If the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, or Washington Post were to have published something like this, do you think IL would have threatened to sue them? Of course not, because IL would lose, just as IL will probably lose its suit with Kyle. However, because Kyle doesn't have the monetary backing as the above mentioned newspapers, IL obviously thought that they could easily threaten Kyle with a long and drawn out lawsuit (costing Kyle thousands upon thousands of dollars). I think the action taken by Kyle was very smart (my father is a lawyer, and I have grown up around the business), as it will bring the suit to Texas (and that way Kyle doesn't have to pay even bigger bucks if the suit was located in Florida).
So you basically think that because a company may have more financial resources than some website, that they have the right to strongarm us if we write something they don't agree with? After reading Kyle's article, I found nothing truly defamatory towards IL, I just see a very poor business record of the people starting it. This stuff is on the public record.
Truthfully, I am glad Kyle stood up to them, as it may very well be a landmark case. Kyle will probably win, and if he does, then it will set a precedent that will be hard to overturn. This precedent will provide a lot of extra protection for smaller sites like mine that may stumble upon some bit of nastiness that a company perpetrated and report it.
Keep it up Kyle. As I said before, while I may not agree with everything you do or say, I still have a lot of respect for what you have built and the type of stance you are taking here. I am not a cheerleader for [H], nor do I tattoo/shave/pierce it on my body, but being a webmaster of a hardware site I know what you go through on a daily basis. Now, if I can only get my traffic up to where your's is...
Josh Walrath
PenStar Systems, LLC.
www.penstarsys.com
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Double standards??
What is wrong with this picture???
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTk5LDM=
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA0LDU=
Kyle .. If you gonna benchmark the cards .. then do them with the same settings and against it's proper competitor.
To drop the 5700 Ultra to 800x600 in the first article leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
If someone goes to the link and doesn't read through the site and doesn't know what to look at, he'll get the wrong impression of the cards. Same thing is the second link. Settings are again different. Dammit man. If the card sucks come out and say it. The 5700 Ultra SUCKS.
Sheesh
US
What is wrong with this picture???
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTk5LDM=
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA0LDU=
Kyle .. If you gonna benchmark the cards .. then do them with the same settings and against it's proper competitor.
To drop the 5700 Ultra to 800x600 in the first article leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
If someone goes to the link and doesn't read through the site and doesn't know what to look at, he'll get the wrong impression of the cards. Same thing is the second link. Settings are again different. Dammit man. If the card sucks come out and say it. The 5700 Ultra SUCKS.
Sheesh
US
Maybe you've failed to notice that that's how [H] benches cards in all of their reviews? He does go on to say that the 5700U performed terribly and that they had to drop the res in order to get a decent framerate.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Yes but a casual browser who might stumble upon the site might not read what he said and just instead look at the pictures.
I must say when I had a look I thought wow.. and until I read it then I got a better picture.
Even the settings on the pictures are misleading .. if you have a quick look you almost don't see that the settings are different.
US
I must say when I had a look I thought wow.. and until I read it then I got a better picture.
Even the settings on the pictures are misleading .. if you have a quick look you almost don't see that the settings are different.
US
- Status
Similar threads
