On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:02:21 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:57:43 -0600, Derek > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:53:13 GMT, pilo_ wrote:
>>
>>> ...maybe he'll get the message eventually.
>>
>>Oh, great. First it was spam from Dragonwater. Now it's spam ABOUT
>>dragon water.
>>
>>Oh, joy.
>
>
> I'm only going to use bad language one time in this newsgroup for this
> post.

Good. Now do I have your attention?

> Quit being a little bitch and complaining about our 'spam' and try to
> help do something to remedy the situation. Replying to each and every
> of our posts against dragonwater will do nothing but perhaps spern
> other people to post from Dragonwater. At least we are trying
> SOMETHING. You yourself said that you didn't like Dragonwater either.

"Doing something" is not always the same as "doing something
productive."

Oh, sure. Your critical threads have had an effect. The site owners
are now moderating out all of your critical threads. None of the
Dragonwater customers are going to see them. And the people at
Dragonwater probably just think you're a krank.

On the other hand, I've actually been corresponding with the owner of
the site and politely encouraging that more specific disclaimers about
what TeaTalk actually is be added to the site. He seems to comprehend
what I was saying, even if he hasn't acted on it yet.

So before you start waxing thersitical with your allegations of
complacency, you might want to consider that you don't know what I
have or haven't done.

And think about which one of us is actually having a positive effect
on the situation.

--
Derek

Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is to just fire all of
the unhappy people.