| |
Main
Date: 22 Dec 2006 12:23:34
From:
Subject: An open apology to all
|
Dear AC members,
It seems that in my posting of the thread "CG editor awards" I have
shaken up the world of coffee.
First let me explain my post.
My post asked the question, and I will add to the original question for
clarification:
Should the paid photography customers of k Prince ( Not
CoffeeGeek.com ) be eligible for the Awards given by the editor of
Coffeegeek.com ( k Prince )?
The reason I ask this is that in all other situations this would be
considered a conflict of interest, or even as others have noted shill
product placement.
Now to take from other responses, I have been accused of posting under
alias, and lying and being bitter, just to name a few. Some people that
I really respect have even asked me questions around the question
without ever answering the question, such as " would I have said
anything if these product came in third or fourth place".
Truth is yes, I would have asked the question. I did not ask the
question to discredit anyone or any place. It was simply a question. My
motives were nil. It was simply a study in what is right or wrong and
what works or doesn't.
The fact that I have been personally attacked with regards to my
question is nothing short of rude, however, I have come to expect that
type of attitude when I ask the hard questions. I have been accused of
being bitter or unhappy with the results of the awards, and to be
honest there is nothing to justify this.
The message sent without actually answering the question is that the
majority feel that k Prince ( Not CG ) is not out of line, nor in a
conflict of interest with regards to being paid to take pro photos of
products that he then gives placement to in international publications
and then awards.
I have clarified my question a number of times, but it seems that a few
what to respond without actually reading the thread. The question has
nothing to do with advertisers and in fact I participate a Volkswagen
oriented forum that has paid advertisers.
The question is about ethics and what is involved in the running of
such a forum. Why did I choose Coffeegeek as an example? Well it is the
only other forum that I'm aware of that has a similar profile.
I liken this award system much the same as some of the "best of the
web" awards. where one gives itself an award in order to increase
traffic etc.
The weight attached to such awards is huge in a small industry and in
particular to a forum driven site such as CG, where consumers looking
for unbiased opinions find information.
I should note that I sell a majority of the items that won awards so I
will also benefit from this, so why would I complain?
Now with that said, the other things that were thrown into this thread
about me personally we not required, yet, the editor chose to attack me
and slander me in public. I'm surprised by this as he has denied my
company the ability to respond to complaints on his website
coffeegeek.com. The fact that he did IP searches on this user name and
then posted my name in the title of a thread was a tad bit childish and
paranoid. The paranoia has even gone as far as to block our IP from
viewing CG months ago.
My company and Coffeegeek, are simply not a good fit. We work within
the trade on the professional side and not so much in the consumer
arena, but we do share an interest in this area. k and I have
clashed on many topics or the years and both of us have taken things a
tad to far with regards to this grudge if you will.
The responses in this thread from k as well as elsewhere on the web
this week, are hard to read, but I guess it is how he has chosen to
defend himself, and I respect that.
So, with out wasting any further time or energy, I offer up this
apology to all of you who felt the question was out of line. k,
congratulations on being in such a position that you can blur the lines
of business and pleasure. It was never my intent for this to turn into
such a debacle, however it has offered up an interesting turn of
events. I hope that you can now analyze this thread for what it is
worth and see the errors you have made with regards to banning me from
Coffeegeek, as the similarities are there.. I honestly do not believe
that you will see my point, but at least you can see the mechanics
involved in the process. I mean this with all due respect.
To all of you I wish nothing but the best in the New Year and a Happy
Holiday season,
Terry Z
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 06:01:16
From: myron
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
And to all a good night!
JC Dill wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2006 12:23:34 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Should the paid photography customers of k Prince ( Not
> >CoffeeGeek.com ) be eligible for the Awards given by the editor of
> >Coffeegeek.com ( k Prince )?
>
> Every product should be eligible for awards. Otherwise the awards are
> meaningless because of the exclusion of award-worthy products.
>
> If you don't trust the person who chooses the awards - e.g. you don't
> trust the editor who puts out Editor's Choice Awards, then restricting
> the items that person can choose from isn't the solution. Just follow
> someone else's awards.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> jc
>
> --
>
> "The nice thing about a e is you get to ride a lot
> of different horses without having to own that many."
> ~ Eileen Morgan of The e's Nest, PA
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 14:38:19
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
On 22 Dec 2006 12:23:34 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>Should the paid photography customers of k Prince ( Not
>CoffeeGeek.com ) be eligible for the Awards given by the editor of
>Coffeegeek.com ( k Prince )?
Every product should be eligible for awards. Otherwise the awards are
meaningless because of the exclusion of award-worthy products.
If you don't trust the person who chooses the awards - e.g. you don't
trust the editor who puts out Editor's Choice Awards, then restricting
the items that person can choose from isn't the solution. Just follow
someone else's awards.
Sheesh.
jc
--
"The nice thing about a e is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The e's Nest, PA
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 06:56:02
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
On 22 Dec 2006 12:23:34 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>Dear AC members,
>
>It seems that in my posting of the thread "CG editor awards" I have
>shaken up the world of coffee.
The most shameful part of this feud is that it has so preoccupied the
AC community, no one is lifting a finger to help the poor guy with
zombies eating his brains.
shall "stays focused on the important things"
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 09:30:44
From: notbob
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
On 2006-12-23, shall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> The most shameful part of this feud is that it has so preoccupied the
> AC community, no one is lifting a finger to help the poor guy with
> zombies eating his brains.
He was serious about that? I just took it for granted it was PR
for another off-Broadway musical. :\
nb
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 18:47:12
From: JoeP
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
Ahh Terry,
Taking on the mighty CoffeeKid!!! Wow! Or should I call him the self
ordained Prince of Coffee :-D hahahaha. No hard feelings from me. Good
Luck. Terry has only provided exceptional service to me through his
company espresso parts NW. And Coffeegeek has always provided a
plethera of knowlege mainly through its membership. Too bad you guys
can't just get along. Well Merry Christmas everyone, hopefully you all
have some good coffee this year and maybe some decaff. I still can't
imagine what could be bad enough to get kicked out of a forum that is
for a comfort drink???? Sounds politically motivated to me.
Joe
www.greencoffeebuyingclub.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 19:20:48
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
I've not been following this conflict, nor do I wish to start. Out of curiosity
I read this post. I could care less about your pissing contest. I would like to
point out some observations I thought were interesting. Dan
> Should the paid photography customers of k Prince ( Not
> CoffeeGeek.com ) be eligible for the Awards given by the editor of
> Coffeegeek.com ( k Prince )?
>
> The reason I ask this is that in all other situations this would be
> considered a conflict of interest, or even as others have noted shill
> product placement.
If you are going to answer your own questions you don't need AC, all you need is
a mirror. I believe in debating this tactic is called a strawman argument.
> and slander me in public.
LOL! is there any other kind of slander than 'public?'
> k and I have
> clashed on many topics or the years and both of us have taken things a
> tad to far with regards to this grudge if you will.
Ah, you have history.
> So, with out wasting any further time or energy, I offer up this
> apology to all of you who felt the question was out of line.
Hmm... A conditional apology.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 00:31:19
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:20:48 -0500, "Dan Bollinger"
<danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote:
>> and slander me in public.
>
>LOL! is there any other kind of slander than 'public?'
>
i'm welcome a correction, but wouldn't it be libel?
--barry "'slander' = 'spoken'"
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 22:10:54
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
> >> and slander me in public.
> >
> >LOL! is there any other kind of slander than 'public?'
> >
>
> i'm welcome a correction, but wouldn't it be libel?
Libel is when it is written. Slander is when it is spoken. Both are, by
definition, done in public, so saying 'public slander' is redundant. Saying
something in private, just between you and him, without witnesses, cannot be
slander, it's just a private conversation. D
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 15:35:34
From:
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
CoffeeKid wrote:
> w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Now with that said, the other things that were thrown into this thread
> > about me personally we not required, yet, the editor chose to attack me
> > and slander me in public. I'm surprised by this as he has denied my
> > company the ability to respond to complaints on his website
> > coffeegeek.com. The fact that he did IP searches on this user name and
> > then posted my name in the title of a thread was a tad bit childish and
> > paranoid.
>
> One, no, two minor points of clarification, for this non-apology.
>
> a) you denied yourself access to CG Forums, Terry, by not following the
> forum rules and garnering three strikes. Other actions got your banned
> as an advertiser. You've got no one else but yourself to blame for
> that. Maybe if you started taking responsibility for your own actions
> and words, things like that would happen less.
>
> b) you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar doing something that
> is pretty much unacceptable on usenet - posting with two identities -
> one known (your email address), one anonymous that you've posted with a
> total of three or four times since 2004 before your accusations of me
> selling awards. I also note that in those other four posts, you never
> identified yourself either.
>
> I don't believe your excuse for a second about the anonymous posting
> "mistake". You said as much yourself in a voice mail to me (which I
> still have on file) from April 2006 that you would hound me all over
> the internet trying to discredit me. So please don't try to turn this
> around and make yourself out as the victim.
>
> And to other AC'ers - I know. I know.
>
> I should know better than to respond to this. But I can't stand this
> kind of shit. Terry - you're not the victim. You're many other things,
> but not the victim. And you got caught. Trying to turn it around won't
> change that you tried, once again, to discredit me and the website
> simply because of your own bitterness and spite.
>
> k
Thank you k for showing your true colors time and time again, in
this thread, you discredit nobody but yourself by continuing to slander
me in public.
I think I will simply take the high road at this point, and be the
bigger of both of us.
Again, apologies to you. Happy Holidays,
Terry Z or w1r3d1
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 15:20:46
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
> Now with that said, the other things that were thrown into this thread
> about me personally we not required, yet, the editor chose to attack me
> and slander me in public. I'm surprised by this as he has denied my
> company the ability to respond to complaints on his website
> coffeegeek.com. The fact that he did IP searches on this user name and
> then posted my name in the title of a thread was a tad bit childish and
> paranoid.
One, no, two minor points of clarification, for this non-apology.
a) you denied yourself access to CG Forums, Terry, by not following the
forum rules and garnering three strikes. Other actions got your banned
as an advertiser. You've got no one else but yourself to blame for
that. Maybe if you started taking responsibility for your own actions
and words, things like that would happen less.
b) you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar doing something that
is pretty much unacceptable on usenet - posting with two identities -
one known (your email address), one anonymous that you've posted with a
total of three or four times since 2004 before your accusations of me
selling awards. I also note that in those other four posts, you never
identified yourself either.
I don't believe your excuse for a second about the anonymous posting
"mistake". You said as much yourself in a voice mail to me (which I
still have on file) from April 2006 that you would hound me all over
the internet trying to discredit me. So please don't try to turn this
around and make yourself out as the victim.
And to other AC'ers - I know. I know.
I should know better than to respond to this. But I can't stand this
kind of shit. Terry - you're not the victim. You're many other things,
but not the victim. And you got caught. Trying to turn it around won't
change that you tried, once again, to discredit me and the website
simply because of your own bitterness and spite.
k
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 16:31:16
From:
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
In alt.coffee, CoffeeKid <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote:
> And to other AC'ers - I know. I know.
Even if you know, it doesn't hurt for us to say it.
k - you have my respect and admiration.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 21:23:59
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
k, I think you're being too harsh. No matter how wrong his actions in
getting banned form CG or double posting, in the end the man offered an
apology. Especially in this holiday season, you should extend forgiveness
to others who show contrition. Even if you think the apology is insincere,
give the person the benefit of the doubt and accept his apology. People will
respect you more than if you go down swinging to the end.
"CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166829646.761426.33140@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> One, no, two minor points of clarification, for this non-apology.
>
> a) you denied yourself access to CG Forums, Terry, by not following the
> forum rules and garnering three strikes. Other actions got your banned
> as an advertiser. You've got no one else but yourself to blame for
> that. Maybe if you started taking responsibility for your own actions
> and words, things like that would happen less.
>
> b) you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar doing something that
> is pretty much unacceptable on usenet - posting with two identities -
> one known (your email address), one anonymous that you've posted with a
> total of three or four times since 2004 before your accusations of me
> selling awards. I also note that in those other four posts, you never
> identified yourself either.
>
> I don't believe your excuse for a second about the anonymous posting
> "mistake". You said as much yourself in a voice mail to me (which I
> still have on file) from April 2006 that you would hound me all over
> the internet trying to discredit me. So please don't try to turn this
> around and make yourself out as the victim.
>
> And to other AC'ers - I know. I know.
>
> I should know better than to respond to this. But I can't stand this
> kind of shit. Terry - you're not the victim. You're many other things,
> but not the victim. And you got caught. Trying to turn it around won't
> change that you tried, once again, to discredit me and the website
> simply because of your own bitterness and spite.
>
> k
>
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 22:53:06
From: Cordo
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
Not for nothing, but it sure didn't look anything like an apology to me.
C
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 22:16:47
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
> k, I think you're being too harsh. No matter how wrong his actions in
> getting banned form CG or double posting, in the end the man offered an
> apology. Especially in this holiday season, you should extend forgiveness to
> others who show contrition. Even if you think the apology is insincere, give
> the person the benefit of the doubt and accept his apology. People will
> respect you more than if you go down swinging to the end.
Actually--and I'm not taking sides, just bringing some clarity to the
situation--Terry originally offered an apology to everyone except k, and only
a conditional one at that. Terry did sound contrite, and I notice that he
managed to get in a few parting shots, too. Then, in his second post, he got in
a few more licks, and then apologized.
There is a saying in personal growth workshops, "Saying you are sorry for
something is just permission to do it again."
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 18:43:29
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
On 22 Dec 2006 15:20:46 -0800, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote:
>b) you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar doing something that
>is pretty much unacceptable on usenet - posting with two identities ....
I have no dog in this fight, but this comment is pure fiction. Since the
earliest days of USEnet, many people have posted from *at least* two separate
accounts with different account IDs, usually one at work and one at home.
There is no "acceptable" anything on USEnet, really. It's a free-for-all.
-- Larry (around since early ARPAnet...)
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 13:29:15
From: daveb
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
Most of what you said was right on the money -- no pun intended.
what I find pitiable is the reaction of k and the ac regulars --
the usual attacks, insults and prepackaged vitriol. Just a part of ac.
so predictable and boring really.
So . . . .
Good Will to (all) Men -- and Women
and to all a good night,
Dave
www.hitechespresso.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 20:56:41
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
On 22 Dec 2006 12:23:34 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>So, with out wasting any further time or energy, I offer up this
>apology to all of you who felt the question was out of line.
i don't think it was out of line. i do think that k's conflict of
interest should have been clearly stated in the article (which it
wasn't). as editor/owner of CG, though, i think k has the right
to select the contestants, pick the winners, and award whatever awards
he wants, no matter what the conflict of interest may be. it would be
nice if k put an annotation on the article explaining the conflict
of interest.
my feeling is that k picked the winners that he liked best, for
whatever reason, and that's what the article was about afterall. i
don't think he "sold out" the winners. i also don't feel you
intentionally posted your query anonymously, and that much of the
backlash (including k's) is due to the anonymity of that original
post. this place has, of late, been the playground of anonymous or
deceptive trolls, so you incurred a fair portion of troll-wrath.
i hope you have a good holiday, and i hope k has a good holiday,
too. and i hope to see you both in long beach in a few months, even
if you two can't stand in the same room with each other.
--barry "not pissed at anyone today, except that miata driver who
decided to insert himself in the 15ft of space between my cruiser and
the semi in front of me"
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 22:09:11
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: An open apology to all
|
Barry Jarrett <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in
news:bjgoo21vd8bp8pq2at5ta9oecvdqf782ss@4ax.com:
>
> --barry "not pissed at anyone today, except that miata driver who
> decided to insert himself in the 15ft of space between my cruiser and
> the semi in front of me"
>
>
Shoulda busted the sucka! I can't stand the little rice burners.
Robert (duck & cover) Harmon
--
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
Remove "Z" to reply via email.
|
|
