Subscribe
Mobi Moniker Auction looks like a deep rabbit hole
November 10th, 2007 by 
Jay Westerdal
I got this email the other day….
The buyer/bidder of these .mobi names at TRAFFIC wants to sell the domains at cost due to other financial obligations. Here is a list of the premium names sold at TRAFFIC to one bidder that now wants to sell them for cost.
Since you were a .mobi buyer/bidder in our most recent Traffic auction I am sending this email in regard to the .mobi names. We are giving you first shot at them but we need you commitment at of above the prices below.
These are available for purchase (on a first come -first serve basis) at these prices below thru this Friday November 9th.
So please email me back ASAP.
Domain Venue Price News.mobi Live $110,000.00 Shopping.mobi Live $55,000.00 ZIPCodes.mobi Live $8,000.00 elections.mobi Silent $3,000.00 jewelry.mobi Silent $15,730.00 move.mobi Silent $3,000.00 price.mobi Silent $3,993.00 weightloss.mobi Silent $3,000.00 Regards,
John Mauriello
So I am left scratching my head and wondering what is going on! I went back through my notes and video of the auction. If I was Ari Goldberg, I would be more then pissed. Ari purchased poker.mobi for $150,000 after a lot of these unpaid for names sold right in front of him. To think there might have been shilling bidding to drive up perception of DotMobi value.
When I look at the bidding on Shopping.mobi I see that the winner was bidder #338 Rick Schwartz. Rick bought Flowers.mobi for $200,000 earlier this year and set the high water mark for a DotMobi name. Surely Shopping is better then Flowers, so what “other financial obligations” would allow Rick to back out of the successful winning and binding bid? Deleted: Read the retraction!
After reviewing the video, I see that ZipCodes.mobi sold to phone bidder #161. The shocking thing is that phone bidder #161 also bought computer.com for $2,200,000. Did Tiger Direct, Inc. ever get paid for that sale, it appears they still own the domain?
Monte posted the following on DomainState:
“ to relieve all the speculation and rumor, the reason for the reach out on these is because the buyer is an investor group out of Sri Lanka. Although I have dealt with them before, there was an increased delay in having funds released from their bank (or from any bank from that country for that matter) due to increased security and terrorist funding investigations.
we do not take any chances and do not want to delay the transactions any longer than what is considered normal processing procedures so the buyer agreed to accept at cost resales while we have the names in escrow or as they were in process.
All but 4 names have now been resold at the auction reserves, preserving the integrity of the domain values and the process. We have lined up back ups and do line up back ups in case of adverse situations and it helped in this case and kept the industry’s reputation in tact.
that was the key initiative of this particular group of names. Hopefully you all can appreciate that no one wants any failed transactions from these types of sales. Its good for each and every one of you not to have a sale go bad and these will not go bad due to our efforts.”
I can’t stress this enough, we need Transparency in this industry. Monte indicates that it is one person that is backing out of all these domains for roughly $200,000 in Mobi domains when in fact it is multiple people. The phone bidder thing, I just don’t trust it after something like this. How do I know if the phone bidder is real during an auction? I feel like people are playing games and everyone is looking the other way.
Sahar talked about these Mobi names on his blog and had this to say about the Mobi buyers in the summer auction:
“The only one who I believe knew what he was doing, in my humble opinion, is Rick Schwartz. Rick knew very well his purchase was a long shot and took his chances, but it wasn’t as much based on .Mobi as it was circumstantial. The rest of the story about this I cannot disclose, but maybe Rick will one day, maybe he won’t.”
I would invite Rick to share the circumstances with us.
UPDATE: Rick did not purchase any of these domains, an earlier draft of this post was incorrect, My notes were wrong and I never would intentionally mis-report facts. Monte has stated that the Big Mobi buyer from Sri Lanka buyer also purchased Computer.com for $2.2 Million. Monte went back later and sold it to another bidder at $2.1 Million.
« Newer Post Older Post »
Posted in Domain Auction |
November 10th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Why should Ari be pissed? My understanding after interviewing Ari and Larry is they were bidding on behalf of someone else. You need to be careful about reporting that someone bought something. For example, I bid on behalf of several people at the auction on several occasions.
UPDATE BY JAY: Ari had to be influenced by everything he was seeing. Certainly the guy he was buying for might have been influenced as well. I think both Ari and Eli should be upset. It is a fact that Ari had the winning paddle. Why would I need to be careful about reporting that. Who Ari bid for really doesn’t matter.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
This is quite an amusing story:
Sahar talked about these Mobi names on his blog and had this to say about the Mobi buyers in the summer auction:
“The only one who I believe knew what he was doing, in my humble opinion, is Rick Schwartz. Rick knew very well his purchase was a long shot and took his chances, but it wasn’t as much based on .Mobi as it was circumstantial. The rest of the story about this I cannot disclose, but maybe Rick will one day, maybe he won’t.”
I would invite Rick to share the circumstances with us.
——————————————————-
It is as if there is some deep dark secret being hidden. SPOOKY! Scares the crap out of me!
Here is perhaps a bigger shock.
Name one Fortune 100 company that Sahir, Rick, or Jay are on the board of directors. How about a Fortune 500 company.
The answer would be…none…zero.
It is as if all the power and the knowledge of the universe all of a sudden bestowed it wisdom upon the likes of these three and thousands of other domainers as to “WHAT IS” and “WHAT SHALL BE”.
When will the countless thousands grow weary and tire out from all the bashing, mystery, accusations, rumors, and what not regarding .mobi as a viable extension? Perhaps never.
So rather than direct comments to other domainers who do or do not like .mobi, where is the influence to convince corporations and entrepreneurs that .mobi is a scam?
Why is there so much time and breath wasted on trying to convince domainers to stay clear of this wicked evil bastard of a domain…mobi?
Yes, transparency. When will Sedo or Moniker or Afternic or Pool reveal the thousands of dot coms bid on and run up and never paid for? Never. When will the same said auction houses reveal the millions of dollars not paid to the sellers and owners of those same domains? Never. When will these same companies reveal the hundreds of thousands of dollars in un-paid commissions? Never.
Yet at the same time, it brings many great joy to report the unpaid domains reported in this feature. Those domains, by the way, which have already been sold and paid for by other parties…something omitted in this bloggish revelry.
So why waste time trying to tell domainers what is good for them and what is bad for them while at the same time ignoring the millions and millions of companies and their ad agencies.
Why not take your time, and the time of others, to attempt to sway those listed below that they have crossed into another dimension. If Sahir, Rick, Jay, and Frank feel like they have enough power in the universe to admonish the corporate big wigs, then let them wield that mighty sword and slay the beast .mobi.
So start here with the mundane attacks on an extension that is not needed and convince these of what fools they are:
Banking
BofA.mobi (Bank of America)
Deutsche-Bank.mobi
Wachovia.mobi
Barclays.mobi
Insurance
Ing.mobi
StateFarm.mobi
AXA.mobi
Hotels
Marriott.mobi
Car Manufacturers
Ferrari.mobi
BMW.mobi
Rolls-Royce.mobi
FordCA.mobi (Ford Canada)
Transportation
Amtrak.mobi
AAA.mobi (American Automobile Association)
Sports
ESPN.mobi
NBA.mobi
WNBA.mobi
Magazines
Time.mobi (Time Magazine)
BusinessWeek.mobi
CNNMoney.mobi
Alcohol
Smirnoff.mobi
Internet
MSN.mobi
GoDaddy.mobi / TDNAM.mobi
Technology
Cisco.mobi
News
FoxNews.mobi
AlJazeera.mobi
Newspapers
TheSun.mobi
Guides
Zagat.mobi
Mobile Operators
T-Mobile.mobi
Three.mobi
Vodafone.mobi
TIM.mobi
Orange.mobi
Mobile Manufacturers
Nokia.mobi
SonyEricsson.mobi
Telecommunications
Ericsson.mobi
Weather
Weather.mobi (The Weather Channel)
Cities
Helsinki.mobi
Airlines
SAS.mobi
Clothing
Polo.mobi
Quikstore.mobi (Quiksilver)
Airports
Schiphol.mobi (Amsterdam)
November 10th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
My point was you didn’t say Ari bid. You said he purchased. To me it makes a difference. I would have worded it in a way such as “Ari made a winning bid for $150,000″ . To me it’s much different than saying “Ari purchased poker.mobi for $150,000″. I’m not going to argue if someone who bought a .mobi at the auction should be mad about it, however if you have no stake in it other than bidding, why would you be upset?
If you read my post about the events you’ll see I never said a specific person bought a domain:
“Several unfamiliar faces were seen bidding. However, some very familiar faces including Xavier Buck from Eurodns, reps from Anything.com, Jakob Knightley from NameDrive.com and reps from Tidewinds.com were active in the bidding”
The reality is you never know who is buying just because someone is bidding. That’s my point.
UPDATE BY JAY: If I send a guy named Joe to the store to pick up some milk, then Joe purchased the milk. Who a person bought something for doesn’t really matter, they made a purchase.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Transparency & .MOBI, two different takes
Transparency is a precondition for liquidity and growth. The domain stock market is in labor and the publicly trading of domains cannot be born without transparency. So far, we have various auction models with limited participation and claimed success. The reality is that the private deals outgun the publicized results todate, IMO.
Jay is an advocate for transparency and I have to side with him on this issue regardless of others personal perceived threats or concerns.
On the .MOBI stuff, my personal opinion is that this extension was not warranted in the first place … thanks ICANN for the controversy!
Internet extensions were assigned first geographically for the masses, then governmental and institutional.
With .MOBI, ICANN gave way for TECHNOLOGY type of extensions, which is dead wrong IMO, because any geographical extension could map to it (or, infringe upon ?) using the TECHNOLOGY workarounds.
crinu iliescu
crinux.com
November 11th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Dot Mobi also seems to be a growing home for scams.
http://www.exclusivetimeshare.mobi/
Can’t see that this site is particularly compliant with any standards, but if you want to target a screened group of highly gullible people and exploit their desperation, then this is the business to be in!
November 11th, 2007 at 3:28 am
TDLines.Net - Transfer Data Lines INC,
November 11th, 2007 at 3:46 am
More transparency is a good idea.
Actually, it isn’t just domains where buyers at auctions have trouble paying up.
The bizarrest angle here is that supposedly the payment could not be transferred because of terrorism. What do News, Shopping and Elections have to do with that? A good place to look for a conspiracy.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:49 am
I think that there are quite a few criminals catching on nowadays as to how domains can be “used” and maybe that is where the threats come from ?.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:49 am
In the interest of transparency, could you show us where Rick Schwartz was the winner of shopping.mobi? I think that when you put a mans reputation and livelihood at risk, you need to show proof.
Donna Mahony
UPDATE BY JAY: I pulled the notes out of the drawer. I had my staff record every winning bidder. I could wait a few months and see the changes on the whois and then know or I could record them as they happened. It says clearly in my notes Bidder #338 Rick Schwartz.
Here are the notes on Rick’s purchases:
shopping.mobi $55,000 #338 Rick Schwartz
carraces.com $8,000 #338 Rick Schwartz
documenttranslation.com $4,500 #338 Rick Schwartz
publicopinionpolls.com $4,000 #338 Rick Schwartz
southpadreislandrealestate.com $3,500 #338 Rick Schwartz
bill.mobi $3,000 #338 Rick Schwartz
lousyinsurance.com $1,000 #338 Rick Schwartz
I have not changed the notes at all.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:25 am
According to Rick, this is a flat out LIE and he is pretty upset about all this. Apparently this is some sort of 8th grade retaliation and he is not pleased at all.
I am amazed that some one in your position, Jay, would allow yourself to even consider something like this, or to allow possible damage to your won rep. This goes beyond juvenile and affects hundreds of domain enthusiasts on either side of the .mobi debate. Lies are lies.
http://www.ricksblog.com/my_weblog/2007/11/mobi-sunday-foo.html?cid=89527710#comments
I am quoting:
“Did you bid and win shopping.mobi yes or no ?
Did you then back out of the purchase, yes or no ?
It is important to clear the air. Jay’s blog has raised very damaging accusations to say the least. If you want to make such bold statements on ” why ” there is a mobi market it is crucial to not look as though you are fixing it!
RS….Even tho the above question was poised by some anonymous poster it is a good question and needs to be answered. I did not win shopping.mobi so the answer is NO and Jay must have made it up becuause it is an outright LIE on HIS part and I expect an apology and a retraction. A BIG apology and LONG retraction explaining this incident considering he circulated to 10,000 of my peers and now showing up on the industry boards. I hope folks on those board will post a link so the record can be set straight.
I did not win shopping.mobi so there was nothing to back out of,. This is very damaging to me and Jay should know better than to LIE. People should now begin to question HIS motives. I expect YOU and others to go back and have Jay explain his made up tales. Then you should ask other questions of why he was motivated to do this without verifying with ME? If you have ANY backbone you will.
Jay spread this lie to 10,000 industry professionals accusing me of backing out of a deal and casting shadows on Me, Moniker and the TRAFFIC Conferences. It was done with the worst of motives and fair minded people will see that. He was able to email me TWICE the day before asking for access to my private forum, but when I told him no and the reason, Jay did not have enough CLASS to email me and ask me directly about this. Instead he CHOSE to drag my good name, Moniker and TRAFFIC thru the mud with info that was not factual and done by a person that has a motive to hurt his competition. A motive to hurt Moniker. A motive to hurt TRAFFIC. A motive to hurt Rick Schwartz. The post by Jay yesterday that I learned about shortly after I made this initial post this morning is an outright LIE and is not factual. Backing out of a deal is one of the worst violations anyone in this community can make. Even when the TRUTH comes out and Jay is forced to apologize, there will always be those that will keep spreading the lie. So how do I EVER fix that? THANKS JAY!
In Summary:
A. I did NOT buy shopping.mobi so Jay should first learn to be factual or stop lying. However I did bid on it and then dropped out.
B. Comparing a bid on one domain compared to a bid on another domain in another auction a YEAR apart does not take into account someone’s circumstance or bank account or commitments or MY personal valuation. So this is just a STUPID comment from a so-called “Businessman.”
C. Jay is bitter that I will not grant him access to my private board on Friday. I said “It was a little too close to home.” Instead of understanding he complained how it was not fair. etc. etc. etc. So instead of emailing me to validate his info, he saw a chance for a sucker punch and he took it!
D. I have invited Jay to TRAFFIC even tho it is not in my best interest and he attends. I invited him to be on a panel even tho it is not in my best interest and put him on “Meet the bloggers”. In return this is what we get!!?? A post done only to hurt the premiere show and auction in our space and cast false shadows that hurts everyone and every business whether you realize it or not. We are all on the same boat and those that drill holes in the bottom to try and sink their competition are being foolish and selfish at best and something I can’t say publicly at worst.
Rick Schwartz”
UPDATE BY JAY: I have one question, if Rick didn’t buy it, then who did? I want Monte to answer that question.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Rubber_Duck Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Dot Mobi also seems to be a growing home for scams.
http://www.exclusivetimeshare.mobi/
“Can’t see that this site is particularly compliant with any standards, but if you want to target a screened group of highly gullible people and exploit their desperation, then this is the business to be in!”
Yes of course duck, as we all know there are zero scam sites on any other extension. This seems to be a .mobi specific thing here. God forbid anyone should actually sell their timeshare! Please be wary of any sites offering to buy or sell products and/or services.
(*this post is COMPLETE and UTTER sarcasm pointed directly at a rediculous statement)
November 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am
conejo Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 3:46 am
More transparency is a good idea.
Actually, it isn’t just domains where buyers at auctions have trouble paying up.
The bizarrest angle here is that supposedly the payment could not be transferred because of terrorism. What do News, Shopping and Elections have to do with that? A good place to look for a conspiracy.
Conejo…
My guess woud be the cash involved and the transfer of that cash from one country to the USA… Not the actual domain names involved.
Banks are on high alert for large cash trasnfers these days. They must be sure there are no funds being transferred to pay for terrorist activities.
No idea if that was actually why the transaction was cancelled, but it would make perfect sense to have a bank refuse to transfer the funds because of the high-risk factor.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Your notes? You put the integrity of Rick Schwartz, Traffic, Moniker and the entire industry on the line based on your notes and we are supposed to trust you to provide transparency? Your notes are proof of nothing! Where is the proof, the video, the audio, “maybe” there was a late bid coming in as you were taking notes and you missed it. I ask again, where is the proof?
November 11th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Jay,
Maybe that was the answer you should have looked for before posting what you said about Rick.
I hope Monte will take the time to reply, maybe he won’t. But, the problem is, you didn’t check the info with Monte before you posted those statements.
IMO, this needs to be clarified to save both of your reputations.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Fighting over .mobi is like fighting over 3rd round CFL draft picks — not many people really care.
That having been said, I’d draw attention to Tasha Kidd’s blog at:
http://bigeduh.com/?p=6
that recorded the paddle numbers of the “winning” bidders (”winning” in quotes, as being a top bidder for a .mobi hardly makes one a “winner”). According to her blog, shopping.mobi (lot #109 on the list) was “won” by paddle #161, who also was the top bidder for computer.com (lot #68 on the list).
November 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Jay - Here is a copy of what I sent you via email. You have no right to question the integrity of our auctions and our auction activity. Your post sole purpose is to benefit yourself at the cost of the entire domain industry:
On 11/11/07, Monte Cahn wrote:
The Sri Lanka Investment group that also won computer.com and 6 other names. Again, they legitimately bid and still wanted to and still want to close all their sales. I decided to move the domains to other buyers to expedite close as we are at the 4 week mark. They are actually going to buy shopping.mobi if the name is not resold to other bidders within the next 2 weeks. Computer.com has been resold along with 4 of the Seven .mobi names for the exact prices at auction. Computer.com was sold for $2.1M.
You need to correct your misreporting, publicly apologize for your error and your accusations immediately.
You will also be put on official legal notice demanding that you do the same.
Best Regards,
Monte Cahn
Founder / CEO
Moniker.com is the world leader in Domain Asset Management including Domain Auctions & Sales, Escrow, Appraisal, Monetization, Registration, Brand Protection, Acquisition, and Portfolio Management.
Toll Free: 1-800-688-6311
O: 954-984-8445
F: 954-969-9155
ICQ: 292961812
MSN: moniker-man@hotmail.com
AIM/Yahoo: MonikerDotCom
From: Jay Westerdal
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:55 PM
To: Monte Cahn
Cc: MR800KING@aol.com; howard@neulaw.com; legal@moniker.com; magolnick@dmmllaw.com
Subject: Re: Rick Schwartz is PISSED!
Monte,
For the record, Who had the original winning bid on Shopping.Mobi?
Jay
On 11/11/07, Monte Cahn wrote:
Jay – first of all I have NEVER asked anyone to bid on anything ever. That is a complete lie. Also it is not your job or responsibility to police me, my company, our auctions, or our industry. You do not have to trust anyone. You need to clear up your allegations right NOW. You are not the domain police or have any credibility to make statements of any type regarding what you do not know.
You will receive a legal demand then legal action from both TRAFFIC and our company if you do not act right now!
Best Regards,
Monte Cahn
Founder / CEO
Moniker.com is the world leader in Domain Asset Management including Domain Auctions & Sales, Escrow, Appraisal, Monetization, Registration, Brand Protection, Acquisition, and Portfolio Management.
Toll Free: 1-800-688-6311
O: 954-984-8445
F: 954-969-9155
ICQ: 292961812
MSN: moniker-man@hotmail.com
AIM/Yahoo: MonikerDotCom
From: Jay Westerdal
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Monte Cahn
Cc: MR800KING@aol.com; howard@neulaw.com
Subject: Re: Rick Schwartz is PISSED!
Monte,
I can’t really trust you. I know for a fact you asked a very close person to you to Shill bid in New York. You can’t trust everyone, that includes the people that you think you can ask those favors of. A lot of know the trust but don’t talk about it.
Jay
On 11/11/07, Monte Cahn wrote:
Well that seems to be the problem with your reporting. Your notes are WRONG….VERY WRONG.
Best Regards,
Monte Cahn
Founder / CEO
Moniker.com is the world leader in Domain Asset Management including Domain Auctions & Sales, Escrow, Appraisal, Monetization, Registration, Brand Protection, Acquisition, and Portfolio Management.
Toll Free: 1-800-688-6311
O: 954-984-8445
F: 954-969-9155
ICQ: 292961812
MSN: moniker-man@hotmail.com
AIM/Yahoo: MonikerDotCom
November 11th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Hi Jay,
With all due respect, I would like to comment as follows:
Look like Rick has explained his position on .mobi and answered all of Jay’s accusations on his blog.
Now its Jay’s turn to answer the questions raised at Rick’s blog that if unanswered will seriously damage Jay’s reputation. Hope Jay can clear it out. If he can prove Rick’s fault, then so be it…….truth needs to come out or it will hurt us all.
Btw, I am no fan of Rick: I am not member of his board and I have never attended his TRAFFIC conferences.
Regarding Transparency:
I have seen most boards (except domainstate where we can argue all sides) deleting comments of members wherever they feel them threatening. I don’t expect Rick to be transparent and the man have controversy built around him
I have seen Jay deleting comments all the time. He may say those were spam posts but I have seen some posts deleted that challenge Jay.
Now how is that transparency!
Jay can’t demand transparency from others when he himself:
- censor people’s comment, and
- illegally invade privacy of other people by telling crooks who owns how many domains. It is a lowest way of doing business when you earn your livelihood by invading innocent domainers’ privacy and putting them at potential risk from crooks.
I would request Jay to be first be transparent himself and then earn his money in decent manners, not by hurting innocent domainers and labeling it as transparency when its just how he wants to make money i.e. by selling domainers info to crooks: Jay’s this action has made majority of domainers question his trustworthiness and motives.
Then domainers will believe him and appreciate what he does, otherwise I don’t think many domainers appreciate how he hurts them.
I know Jay is a very smart person and has great ideas that he implements on domaintools (such as that awesome new auction format), but abusing them to hurt domainers is not a good idea.
Just my 2 cents….thats how I feel.
UPDATE BY JAY: I never censor people’s comment, for the record. I do delete spam and splings. If someone posts a personal question that is directed at me because they can’t figure out how to email me, then I remove the comment and email them directly answering the question. For example, when people post questions about a their domain or tech support in an unrelated thread I remove those comments and respond directly. I don’t like comments that are unrelated to a thread. Period.
Now, for the bigger issue. “Illegally invading privacy”. We do nothing illegal here. There is no privacy rights on public whois.
Your allegations that crooks are the only people using my service is crazy. I would like to see one case of crooks using our service to damage domainers. All the information is public.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:51 am
“If I send a guy named Joe to the store to pick up some milk, then Joe purchased the milk. Who a person bought something for doesn’t really matter, they made a purchase.”
Bidding on a domain is not making a purchase, plain and simple. Transparency requires facts not speculation or assumption. I made sure to talk to Ari after the auction myself to get the facts straight. Did you?
UPDATE BY JAY: Adam, I don’t know what we are arguing about, Ari was the winning bidder. Who he purchased it for is not really an issue. You are arguing my semantics.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Thanks Jay for the update to your original post clarifying the whole mess. Hopefully it all stops here.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I don’t know if you realize Jay, but your new tool (that tell who owns how many domains) is a major threat to many people’s personal safety from crooks. It is very depressing that someone can get that kind of info about every domainer. Please take a moment to think about the potential devastating impact of such tool or innocent domainers. Why do the entire worldd need to know which domainer has how many domains. Its no one’s business in my opinion. Your tool may perhaps even be illegal as it invades privacy of people.
Please take it down……its not worth it if because of your tool some domainer or his family is exposed to threats.
I hope you care about the domainer community and just do the right thing.
Thanks a lot!
November 11th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I’m tired of the Mobi SHILLING. Yes, let’s call it what it is. Even Frankie, the nicest guy in the industry, appears to have had enough too, judging from his post on his blog. We’ve all had enough. It’s giving the industry a black eye, not to mention Moniker’s reputation. The whole Sra Lanka explanation is just the latest in explanations that insult everyone’s intelligence.
Rick talks like he’s been libeled or slandered. I sure wish there would be a lawsuit so we could gain, through discovery, all the crap that’s REALLY been going on.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Finally, I would say that I apologize if I have said something incorrect above in my posts or against your prestige. I am still hoping you will take your new tool down.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Guess you aren’t seeing the point. The semantics make it not transparent and not factual Jay. If you want transparency you should practice what you preach. You got enough to deal with here I can see so I’ll leave it at that.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I am closing comments on this post. I have started a new post that explains what has happened in the last 3 hours.
Feel free to comment there.