RE: [cobalt-users] RE: RACKSHACK.NET

["Rodolfo J. Paiz \(E-mail\)" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay,

I don't recall seeing posts from you before, so I will *assume*
that you are new to this list; please correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, this list is a community and each member creates a
good or bad reputation for his/herself by the quality of the
posts and responses issued as well as the level of knowledge
and professionalism shown. Carrie has a well-earned reputation
for being a friendly, cooperative, useful member of this forum
and this is the first time I have read her raise her voice at
all. It is also the first time I have seen her truly speak ill
of anyone.

Your post, on the other hand, I find literate and educated but
naïve and judgmental when you have nothing on which to base
your opinions. Detailed critique:

> From the pictures on their website, it's fairly easy to see
> that rackshack.net has a fairly substantial NOC (even if it
> is shared with an ISP -- not a bad partnership, IMHO).

"From the pictures on their website..."??? Come on; you're not
that credulous, right? Those pictures may be for real, or they
may be an outright lie... but you have *zero* grounds for
contesting Carrie's assertions based on those pictures. You
are making a statement of fact based on evidence of whose
veracity you could not pretend to vouch.

> There are numerous obstacles to overcome in launcing a new
> company, and it's entirely possible that (outside) events
> made in impossible for the company to meet their launch date.
>
> I don't think it's fair to publicly crucify someone for
> trying, and I think a (public) apology should be forthcoming.

It would not be fair to do so, and someone who did would in fact
have a (moral) obligation to offer such apology. However, for
those who did not read Carrie's post with any level of attention,
let me clarify that she crucified them for writing web pages
that clearly detailed an intent to mislead customers and employ
a rather classic bait-and-switch approach.

Carrie's post is intended to protect others from what she perceives
to be a danger; no apology is necessary for that. Her post was
based on specific evidence of rackshack's website, and she posted
URL's and instructions so that others could verify that she was
indeed telling the truth.

I was one who did indeed verify each and every page. I went through
the process; you obviously did not engage in such due diligence,
and apparently didn't even read through her post. Your condemnation
of Carrie is seriously out of line here.

> And to be perfectly honest, I'm still not clear as to whether
> Ms. Bartkowiak actually ever signed up for service with
> rackshack.net, or if she's simply miffed because she was
> hoping to sign-up with them at their great rates, and was
> unable to do so due to unforseen delays on their part.

Sigh... you *really* didn't read her post. She desperately
wanted to sign up with them which is why she so thoroughly
investigated the issue. She's miffed and decided to forgo
said signup due to a conviction that this company was and
is not someone she wants to do business with.

> As for her migration issues, she bears full responsibility
> for that. As she so aptly pointed out, she obtained a server
> from another hosting company, so what's really the issue?

Jay, the quality of your writing indicates that you are not
an idiot. However, I must admit that I find the quality of
your reasoning not quite up to the same standard. The issue
is that this company is being (according to the web pages now
seen by several members of this community) dishonest in its
sales tactics. As they are likely suppliers to many of us,
Carrie issued a warning. The company chose to try to defend
itself and did a poor job, then you rather pedantically chimed
in with an ill-informed judgment of Carrie. I do hope the
storyline is now clear enough.

As to the migration, yes of course she's responsible for that.
She did something (waited a month for rackshack) in the hopes
that it would be good for her customers and transitively good
for her in the long run. This did not work; so she fixed it.
Long term, this is how businesses succeed or fail: by how their
customers judge the actions taken in their interests among
other factors.

I apologize if I cross the line from reprimand to attack; you
are obviously not a "bad" person and mean well, since you're
trying to uphold standards of civil behavior. However, you
didn't read her post and thus answered with comments, judgments
and criticisms that made you look like a pompous twit. Hence
my response as constructive criticism.

P.S. By now, *everyone* knows that I speek freely... <grin>

P.P.S. I don't have $100,000 either, but so help me God, if a
company with a "Head Surfer" on its payroll goes after someone
for something like this, I will personally find a (legally and
morally acceptable) way to ensure that they don't stay in business
too long.

--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>