Ok, for the short attention-spanned amongst us does that mean you think [H] DID want to go to court or do you think that [H] did NOT want to go to court?
Just a short answer please.
Just a short answer please.
Infinium sues [H]
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
WaltC said:
Oh yes clearly Infinium meant to act immediately and Kyle was merely wasting his time.
What [H] did is a fairly common practice by companies under the threat of lawsuit. Lawsuits can drag on long enough without actually waiting for them to file at the worst possible moment.
[H] never said that Roberts defrauded anyone. Repeat after me. [H] NEVER said that Roberts defrauded anyone. They merely showed his resume if you will. The couple of places where they make comments which put Roberts in a bad light are clearly posted in an 'editorial'.
Please quit paraphrasing (and doing a horrible job of it), if you want to quote [H] then quote them. Your post seems to make a lot of inferences that I don't see in the article.
Here is the article. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTEy
It's not much longer than your last post so please don't tell me you don't have time or can't be bothered to read it.
"[H] NEVER said that Roberts defrauded anyone. They merely showed his resume if you will. The couple of places where they make comments which put Roberts in a bad light are clearly posted in an 'editorial'", says the Dig compliantly for AlphaWolf.AlphaWolf said:
But even if it was never said, it most certainly was heavily implied...at least that's sure how I walked away from the article thinking.
digitalwanderer said:Ok, for the short attention-spanned amongst us does that mean you think [H] DID want to go to court or do you think that [H] did NOT want to go to court?
Just a short answer please.
Sorry, for the long-windedness, but I don't see the issue as simple, really--there's a lot of stuff going on here. It's necessary to flesh the issues out to fully deal with them, I think.
Anyway, from all outward appearances it *seems like* [H] was panting if not frothing at the mouth to sue and/or get sued in relation to these events. However...
We have to take in mind the personalities driving [H] (if there is more than one), and as such I cannot help but think that [H] was not aware of the fact that "I don't like what you've printed, so please take it down or else" letters are actually fairly commonplace on the Internet, and we can all think of the highly publicized events wherein companies like M$, Intel, and nVidia have written "take it down or else" letters to little fish running Internet sites. In this case the difference would be that Infinium is anything but a "big fish" itself, and so it surely is not a case wherein [H] is being bullied by a huge, overbearing company...
The vast majority of these kinds of letters between companies relative to Internet publishing are settled privately, though, and never see the light of day in terms of public disclosure.It seems like [H] took the matter far too personally, and became indignant when it should have become contemplative about the whole thing, because [H] may have perceived the letter as some kind of unique and unprecedented action directed against it, when the truth is that [H] won't be the first web site to find itself the target of such letters nor will it be the last. It may be merely because of the unique [H] personality(ies) that [H] has acted and reacted in the manner it has chosen.
No one but an idiot really wants to go to court, especially when you have no prospect of winning anything but legal bills even if you "win," and a prospect of losing a lot more than that if you lose, and I'm going to assume [H] isn't run by idiots.
Last guess is that [H] panicked when it got the letter because it realized it couldn't prove what it had said, and everything that followed was the result of that panic. I don't really buy that, though, since panicked people will usually jump at an opportunity to painlessly extricate themselves, whereas [H] spurned the simplest and completely painless solution to the dispute that it was initially offered.
So I'm going to say that this whole mess is a personality thing on the part of [H], as [H]'s reaction seems to be congruent with "Choice #1" as I wrote it in my last post in this thread.
AlphaWolf said:Oh yes clearly Infinium meant to act immediately and Kyle was merely wasting his time.
So, I guess [H] was just fantasizing and talking out of its hat when it immediately publicized Infinium's letter which [H] characterized as giving them "10 days to pull the article, or else"...? You keep getting it confused. Infinium started the ball rolling privately with its letter to [H]--it wasn't [H] who sent the letter. The catalyst was *the letter*, not the bogus [H] suit filed in Texas. Heh...
I'm sure that when [H] filed the Texas suit [H] sent Infinium a letter stating:"We're suing you in Texas because what we really want you to do is to sue us in Federal court in Florida! Hurry up--see you in court--Love & kisses, [H]."
Only an imbecile *asks* to get sued...
What [H] was hoping was that the spurious Texas suit would *back Infinium down* and cause them to go away. It was a bluff. It backfired. Simple as that.Er, nine.9 times out of ten a company will "threaten" another company with a suit before suing it. Why? The hope is that a settlement can be reached *before* you have to file a suit. Your comment makes no sense whatever, since the "waiting for them to file" period wasn't even one week before [H] made all of this public....
And, why on earth would [H] concern itself with "waiting on them to file"...???? Makes no sense at all. You either respond or you don't and they sue or they don't. Only a moron says, "OOOOoooo--hurry up and sue me! I can hardly wait!"Besides, think about it rationally for a moment. Which is worse--being "threatened" with a lawsuit, or being sued???? You're so funny--you make it sound like being "threatened by a lawsuit," is like being threatened with having your fingers or kneecaps broken...
Heh... Personally, I'll take being "threatened" by a suit any day over being sued. In the first case there's a chance at settlement sans lawyers, courts, and judges. In the second, there's not, and all those people have to be paid, and you may lose much more than you would have if you had settled prior to court.So what you're saying is that Infinium is suing [H] for libel and defamation because [H] messed up his "resume'" and now Robbins can't get a job??? You're funny...
Secondly, let me see if I can clear something up for you. If I state in an public Internet article: "The following is an editorial" and then I say "In my opinion, John Kerry killed babies in Vietnam, and not only that, but then he ate them. George Bush is a pedophile, and Howard Dean is an ardent homosexual who cross-dresses regularly and enjoys wearing bras"...
I can categorically assure you that my having said, "This is an editorial" does not shield me from the legal consequences of my words, should Kerry, Bush, or Dean take offense over them enough to sue me.
You're a funny guy...
According to you the only reason Infinium wrote its letter asking [H] to remove the article within 10 days or face a suit is because [H] botched up Infinium's "resume"...Heh.......and the only reason [H] keeps publicly screaming "Prove what I said was false, prove my charges false!" was because [H] never made any charges, and the only reason Infinium is suing [H] is because Robbins wants to get the typos corrected in his resume so he can use it to get a job. You know, you might like to stop and think that something's going on here which you aren't seeing, or thinking about, so zealous are you to absolve [H] of all culpability. Tell you what--let's use your definition and call it a "resume" instead of an article. Was there any proof that that "resume" was an accurate, unbiased appraisal of the facts? I don't see any *proof* in the [H] "resume" as it is written that it is *accurate* or *complete.* Furthermore, it strikes me that if you are going to do a "resume" on somebody's past, wouldn't you need to *run it by that person* first, so that he can correct any errors--BEFORE you publish it? OF COURSE, you would. But, then, it's not a resume, is it? Not at all. Which explains why [H] never bothered to run it by Robbins/Infinium for fact-checking, or even rebuttal, before publishing.
Whether you call it "part investigative reporting, part editorial," which is, btw, what [H] has been calling it for a long time, or whether you call it a "resume," it still does not excuse you from *proving the veracity of what you write* when that content is defamatory to a person or company. You need to really absorb that concept because it is the truth.
Last, my reading of the article is much different from yours, as is apparently Infinium's reading of it as well as [H]'s, so it seems you're kind of on an island with respect to your interpretation of it. I happen to think my analogies and paraphrases are "spot on" with regard to the thrust and intent of the article. The facts that I mentioned should have been addressed by the article, but they weren't. To me--that's a fair judgement to make.
Here's a litmus test for you, but it won't do any good unless you are rigidly honest with yourself. Go back to the article, cut the text and paste it into a text file, and then replace Robbins' name with your name, and replace "Infinium" with the name of your company (or school), and imagine that [H] had run that article about you. Try and put yourself in the other guy's shoes, in other words. Suppose you knew and believed that the article was false and defamatory--because--heh--you know yourself and your past and your history much better than [H]. What would you do, suck it up? Or would you--at the very least--ASK THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN? The fact is, if you were guilty as charged, you might just leave it alone and ignore it and pray it goes away with time. But if you aren't guilty as charged, then it seems to me you'd do exactly what Robbins has done, and you'd seek to protect yourself. If you are honest, there's no way you'll see it as a "harmelss resume"---heh...
(That really is the most amusing spin on it I've seen yet.)WaltC said:AlphaWolf said:Oh yes clearly Infinium meant to act immediately and Kyle was merely wasting his time.
So, I guess [H] was just fantasizing and talking out of its hat when it immediately publicized Infinium's letter which [H] characterized as giving them "10 days to pull the article, or else"...? You keep getting it confused. Infinium started the ball rolling privately with its letter to [H]--it wasn't [H] who sent the letter. The catalyst was *the letter*, not the bogus [H] suit filed in Texas. Heh...
"We're suing you in Texas because what we really want you to do is to sue us in Federal court in Florida! Hurry up--see you in court--Love & kisses, [H]."
Only an imbecile *asks* to get sued...
Er, nine.9 times out of ten a company will "threaten" another company with a suit before suing it. Why? The hope is that a settlement can be reached *before* you have to file a suit. Your comment makes no sense whatever, since the "waiting for them to file" period wasn't even one week before [H] made all of this public....
Besides, think about it rationally for a moment. Which is worse--being "threatened" with a lawsuit, or being sued???? You're so funny--you make it sound like being "threatened by a lawsuit," is like being threatened with having your fingers or kneecaps broken...
So what you're saying is that Infinium is suing [H] for libel and defamation because [H] messed up his "resume'" and now Robbins can't get a job??? You're funny...
Secondly, let me see if I can clear something up for you. If I state in an public Internet article: "The following is an editorial" and then I say "In my opinion, John Kerry killed babies in Vietnam, and not only that, but then he ate them. George Bush is a pedophile, and Howard Dean is an ardent homosexual who cross-dresses regularly and enjoys wearing bras"...
I can categorically assure you that my having said, "This is an editorial" does not shield me from the legal consequences of my words, should Kerry, Bush, or Dean take offense over them enough to sue me.
You're a funny guy...
You know, you might like to stop and think that something's going on here which you aren't seeing, or thinking about, so zealous are you to absolve [H] of all culpability. Tell you what--let's use your definition and call it a "resume" instead of an article. Was there any proof that that "resume" was an accurate, unbiased appraisal of the facts? I don't see any *proof* in the [H] "resume" as it is written that it is *accurate* or *complete.* Furthermore, it strikes me that if you are going to do a "resume" on somebody's past, wouldn't you need to *run it by that person* first, so that he can correct any errors--BEFORE you publish it? OF COURSE, you would. But, then, it's not a resume, is it? Not at all. Which explains why [H] never bothered to run it by Robbins/Infinium for fact-checking, or even rebuttal, before publishing.
Whether you call it "part investigative reporting, part editorial," which is, btw, what [H] has been calling it for a long time, or whether you call it a "resume," it still does not excuse you from *proving the veracity of what you write* when that content is defamatory to a person or company. You need to really absorb that concept because it is the truth.
Last, my reading of the article is much different from yours, as is apparently Infinium's reading of it as well as [H]'s, so it seems you're kind of on an island with respect to your interpretation of it. I happen to think my analogies and paraphrases are "spot on" with regard to the thrust and intent of the article. The facts that I mentioned should have been addressed by the article, but they weren't. To me--that's a fair judgement to make.
Here's a litmus test for you, but it won't do any good unless you are rigidly honest with yourself. Go back to the article, cut the text and paste it into a text file, and then replace Robbins' name with your name, and replace "Infinium" with the name of your company (or school), and imagine that [H] had run that article about you. Try and put yourself in the other guy's shoes, in other words. Suppose you knew and believed that the article was false and defamatory--because--heh--you know yourself and your past and your history much better than [H]. What would you do, suck it up? Or would you--at the very least--ASK THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN? The fact is, if you were guilty as charged, you might just leave it alone and ignore it and pray it goes away with time. But if you aren't guilty as charged, then it seems to me you'd do exactly what Robbins has done, and you'd seek to protect yourself. If you are honest, there's no way you'll see it as a "harmelss resume"---heh...
I am just gonna quote hardocp and I am done here.
Taken from Infinium Labs Vs. HardOCP - Round 2
Hardocp said:
The declatory judgement act seems exactly designed to let you force those who threaten you with legal action to make good on their threats (or retract them and put you in the right). It seemed an appropriate action to take to me if you wanted the threats off the table, you might argue it was early ... but there was obviously no settlement any of the parties would ever accept, so it would have to go to court sooner or later. Might as well be sooner, and a chance of getting the venue close to home was a boone.
Marco
PS. Alphawolf, dont do wholesale quotation plz.
Marco
PS. Alphawolf, dont do wholesale quotation plz.
MfA said:
What's wrong with the statute [H] is attempting to invoke, apparently referred to as "the declatory judgement act" as you mention it, is that the statute repudiates and provides a defense against a repeated pattern of threats of litigation over a protracted period of time, in the absence of an actual suit, threats undertaken in order to materially influence the conduct of a company in some fashion. Generally, too, an expected context for application of the act is that a big company is attempting to push a smaller company around by continuously holding up the threat of a lawsuit as a figurative Sword of Damocles. The statute was written to protect from a type of strong-against-the-weak blackmail, in other words. Of the two companies, [H] and Infinium, [H] is certainly the better-known company and with far more influence in the industry than Infinium, it seems to me.
According to the information [H] (unwisely in my view) made public on this matter from the start, it was only a matter of days (or hours) after receiving Infinium's *initial* letter which not only "threatened a suit" but also "offered a remedy" (a remedy that would have been painless for [H] to have complied with privately. If you think taking down that months-old article that was no longer current news and had been read by everyone who was going to read it, considering the defamatory nature of the comments it contained, was in any way a "burdensome" request, I'd like to know exactly why you think that way.) As such, of course, there is absolutely no "pattern of harrassment over a protracted period" here whatsoever, and we aren't talking about a big company seeking to manipulate a smaller company by way of lawsuit threats. But that's not the only reason I deem the statute [H]'s lawyers applied here to be wholly inapplicable.
It's because this is a libel and defamation-of-character case. As I pointed out in other posts, the burden of proof in such cases is squarely on he who makes the libelous and or defamatory comments, should the person on the receiving end of them take exception enough to pursue the matter in court. Not only that, but if you are a person who considers that you have been libeled or defamed in public print, the only option for self-defense you have is to ask for the offending material to be removed, and barring that, to go to court. In short, under the circumstances, there is nothing harsh or abrasive or manipulative as to Infinium's response to the matter, and the way Infinium handled it is entirely reasonable, in my view. If [H]'s public summation of Infinum's private request is accurate, Infinium simply asked that the article be removed, and did not even ask for a public retraction! It's difficult to imagine a more reasonable request considering the nature of the article. What has been entirely unreasonable, in my view, is the nature of [H]'s response to Infinium's initial, private request to have the article removed from [H]'s archives.
Thus, [H]'s interpretation of the statute as requiring Infinium to "prove our charges/statements false" is an obvious perversion of the statute, which was never written to address issues of libel and/or character defamation in the first place. That's why I've said from the start that I believe the Texas suit "preemptively" filed by [H] under the auspices of this statute, was a misapplication of the statute, which [H]'s lawyers were fully aware was a misapplication, but which they filed anyway under the belief that Robbins/Infinium were indeed crooks and would back down at the first hint that they'd have to go public in a lawsuit. This gambit did not work, imo, because evidently there is more to the story than [H] ever cared to consider or acknowledge.
That's the sad part of it--had [H] any real inkling of what "investigative reporting" is actually all about, my belief is that the original [H] Infinium article that is the subject of these proceedings would never have been published as it was. What's clear to me in reading the article, *and* in reading all of [H]'s ill-advised public commentary on the matter since, is that [H] considers all sources of information about Inifinium, except Infinium itself, to be reliable. To add insult to injury here, [H] did not even attempt to prove out any of the allegations its extra-Infinium sources made about Infinium, but simply ran with them as though [H] had actually proved them all true.
To provide perspective by way of a hypothetical, suppose I was an investigative reporter doing a piece that was looking into possible malfeasance on the part of General Motors about some aspect of its automobile business. Suppose that my only sources for that article were people who had an opinion that "GM is crooked," but had no proof of their assertions. And suppose, just suppose, that I never bothered to run any of it by GM at all before going to print! While you might correctly call such an approach "tabloid journalism," the one thing you could never call it is "investigative reporting," which it would not even remotely resemble. Again, according to what [H] has itself published on the matter, [H] does not consider Infinium a reliable source of information about Infinium. I think this seemingly willful attitude will turn out to be problematic for [H] (indeed, this is already very much the case.) I think it's perfectly fine for [H] to consider sources outside Infinium, but to exclude Infinium as a source when the subject matter is Infinium, strikes me inexplicable and very possibly prejudicially motivated.
For a person purporting to be an "investigative reporter," the best and only true iron-clad defense against libel or defamation is that you can present reasonable proof that what you print is true. You investigate and publish such facts as you find without regard as to whether they are congruent with any preconceived notions you may have had prior to starting your investigation. It's important to distinguish "facts" as entirely separate from "rumors," because repetition of unproven rumor in the guise of "fact" is no defense against libel or defamation.
Logically, then, it follows that to protect yourself from charges of libel or defamation in a case of this sort, you include your supporting facts and proofs in your article, which would not only serve to strengthen and legitimize your article, lending it immeasurable credibility, but also serve as a defense against charges of libel later on down the line, should they arise (I might add that proving your case in your article convincingly pretty much guarantees that you won't be on the receiving end of a libel/defamation suit as the propsective plaintiff in such a case will already know that you can prove what you said.) The problem [H] has here is that the sweeping, general statements and/or implications/characterizations made in the article concerning Infinium and its principals were wholly unproven in the article, as far as I could see.
I want to make it plain that I *do not* support website owners/managers "taking down" every article they write simply because they receive a letter asking/demanding they do so. That would be ridiculous, of course. I'm saying something much, much different: that website owners/managers should not publish articles which defame the character of specific individuals who are identified by name in the article *unless they can prove their allegations/implications/characterizations,* and that such proof should always be included in the article itself.
IE, if you can't prove it, do not allege it, imply it, or characterize it, *if* the comment could be considered defaming to the person's character. "So-and-so said such-and-such about PersonX in a public Internet forum," does not constitute proof of anything. It's merely hearsay, rumor, and gossip. Not fact--unless you can objectively and thoroughly prove it to be true by means other than Internet forums. (In short, publishing "investigative reporting" pieces marked as "news" which defame people and/or companies based on Internet forum opinions is an exceedingly *bad* idea. And of course the difference between "investigative reporting" and an "editorial" is night and day and you cannot do both simultaneously.)
Last, a brief word on "speech" in general. I am sometimes amazed by how many people miss the obvious fact that all speech is not "free" or "protected by the Constitution," etc. The most common example of speech that is not protected and may even put you "behind bars" is the common lie. Lies are speech, certainly. That they are not protected is just as certain. "Fraud," for instance, is simply another word for "lying." He who commits fraud risks both criminal and civil penalties for his lies.
Next common example I can think of is speech used to threaten life and limb. Say that I am exceedingly unhappy with the voting record of Congressmen X, and I write Congressman X a letter in which I tell him to change his ways or I'm going to "off" him and maybe even his family, too. I could wind up in prison for such speech, even if I had no intention of ever actually doing anything close to what I had threatened, and the government could not prove that I had ever attempted such actions in reality. I could be hung on my speech alone.
Then of course we have libel and defamation laws, which are laws restricting speech, enacted to protect people from having lies publicly circulated about them. These laws give people an avenue of redress which they may use if they feel they have been publicly libeled or defamed. They are a necessary "check & balance" to the "free" press, elevating the rights of individuals to the level of a government or a corporation.
On the other side of the coin, there are many things we can freely express our opinions on without fear of government or corporate sanction. Those of you who have from time to time been unfortunate enough to have to slog through some of my epistles in the B3d forums and elsewhere are aware that I will often vigorously criticize the products companies make, as well as the public statements companies may make, when it seems incumbent on me to do so. Like politicians--Heh...
--the products companies sell into the public, as well as their *public* statements, are considered "fair game" as far as the fact that people may freely share their opinions on these products, negative or positive, defamatory or not. It's yet another "check & balance" in free speech laws which seeks to elevate the rights of individuals to express their opinions about products of all types to the level of the rights of corporations to advertise those products in a manner they deem fitting. The only time I ever get "personal" is when responding to the public statements made by specific individuals in the performance of their duties as corporate officers, and what I tear apart, or applaud as the case may be, is the *public statements* the person makes, which I always quote or reference, as opposed to the person himself. Such public products and public statements as companies may sell and make are fair game, as far as the rights of people to openly express their opinions on them are concerned. Such speech is fully protected.But, when you move speech from the realm of casual opinion into the realm of "formal public publishing," via a web site, newspaper, etc., it really makes no difference whether you call what you write an "editorial," or "investigative journalism," or simply "news," you are no longer expressing informal opinions, and you must consider that if you write something in that venue which is defaming to an individual's character, an individual you directly name and identify, then you may very well find yourself on the opposite side of libel and defamation-of-character laws as that person seeks redress against you. So, before you ever write such pieces for publication, just make sure you can prove everything you say, is the truth of it.
It seems to me that [H] is perpetually confused as to whether what it publishes belongs in an informal newsgroup forum as a casual opinion, or whether it is "news," or "editorial," or "investigative journalism" fit for formal, public publication. It is not apparent to me that [H] understands any of the distinctions I make in this post between private opinion and the practice of public publishing. In short, he who wishes to be regarded as a "journalist" must first understand what that means.
I apologize to any and all I need to over the length of the posts I've made in this thread, and can only add that in none of these posts did I anticipate such length. But one thing leads to another in my thinking, and I felt it better to be complete as opposed to being misunderstood. There are some interesting if not fascinating principles resonating behind the current Infinium-[H] dispute, not the least of which is the question of "What is an editorial, and what is not?" It strikes me, and this is just my opinion, that an editorial is much like many posts I write--it's a forum to express not only your opinions but to explain exactly how you arrived at your conclusions. It also strikes me that using the word "editorial" as a platform from which to launch defamation of character against an individual, any individual, which you cannot directly and convincingly prove, is entirely wrong and improper, and is not something a professional journalist would do.
I sincerely hope that [H] and Infinium will re-establish a dialogue and settle this matter quickly out of court, for both their sakes. I see no clear-cut victory for Infinium because the bar for libel is very high, and the judge may allow [H] wide latitude for "reasonable error," which *is* a complete defense against charges of libel. It depends on the evidence and the judge, of course, but "human error," or "reasonable error" has long been considered an acceptable defense against libel. In short, libel is not *just* about making false statements, it's about making them with premeditation and about knowing the charges made were false when you made them. OTOH, [H] will have to present much better data than reprints of Internet forum posts written by "HangDog" or "BlueKnight" before the judge is likely to conclude any error was possible...
For [H], though, I see no possibility of any sort of "win" in any tangible sense, and the best I think [H] can hope for is that it can settle with Infinium privately before trial, and barring that, that it can get both suits dismissed and so what [H] will "win" is a reduced lawyer bill. Even if [H] avoids any direct penalty by successfully convincing a judge that it said what it said out of genuine error, [H] will undoubtedly then be forced to issue a public retraction acknowledging the errors it made. I thought that Infinium's private settlement offer in the very beginning, at least as it was characterized by [H], was very generous and more than fair as Infinium would have been satisfied with nothing more than a removal of the article from the [H] archives. So I wish both parties well and implore them both to settle. Heh...
If SUN and M$ can bury the hatchet, it's certain that [H] and Infinium can do likewise.MrGaribaldi
Regular
Walt C said:
Just have to add my voice to Tommy.
I found your posts to be very informative and interesting. You present a well thought out argument to back up your POV, and it's quit refreshing especially after reading the NvNews sheningans thread.
You also bring to light aspects which are easily overlooked in cases like this.
So, Thank You
If you think a company has to take legal threats back or make good on them your only way of achieving that is to ask for declatory judgement. [H] wanted that, would simply waiting have done the same? Probably yes, maybe no. Why bother waiting? Ask for declatory judgement ... by the time the case had gone in front of the judge Infinium's threats would have been on the table long enough for it to be relevant.
Wether declatory judgement addresses any given reason to threaten lawsuits with is irrelevant, only the threat is relevant. Infinium offering them the choice to sit up, beg and roll over isn't relevant either ... if you arent going to do it.
To me the weight of the article was about their CEOs former string of successes and the professionality which shines from the PO box that was their main contact point. Infinium could have added little of substance. Roblimo had just been there and they still had nothing to show, and everything to prove.
What specific part of the article do you have a problem with?
Marco
Wether declatory judgement addresses any given reason to threaten lawsuits with is irrelevant, only the threat is relevant. Infinium offering them the choice to sit up, beg and roll over isn't relevant either ... if you arent going to do it.
To me the weight of the article was about their CEOs former string of successes and the professionality which shines from the PO box that was their main contact point. Infinium could have added little of substance. Roblimo had just been there and they still had nothing to show, and everything to prove.
What specific part of the article do you have a problem with?
Marco
Nick Spolec
Newcomer
Still one of the funniest things I have ever read.
