🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Hales wrote:

> You misunderstand me. I was pointing out that you have no case, so why
> not give it up? 

Are you referring to a legal case ??? I've never claimed to have a legal
case. Where are you getting this from ? 

> While you've not specifically mentioned
> courts, etc., your arguments and accusations are pointed at what you
> perceive to be wrongs against you that would be actionable. 

You keep making all this crap up. *You're* the one attempting to apply a
legal bent to this ugliness. 

Whether or not the claims I'm making and the most prominent one being :
Primenet shares personal/confidential information from their user data
base with telemarketing firms is actionable or not is of no concern to
me. This is an issue people will decide on their own. 

I guarantee you that if Primenet or anyone else requesting personal
information from me told me up front that they would be sharing it with
a telemarketing agency, than I would decline their services or product.
That's my choice, you are free to make your own.

> Otherwise,
> why all the fuss?

Here, I've taken to copy/pasting for convenience. 

I believe that this whole telemarketing scheme was a poorly executed
fiasco. For primenet to publicly say that they had no better way to
communicate with their  customers is bull plain and simple. They're
versed
in email, listserv, snailmail, and a host of less intrusive methods for
initiating customer contact.

We don't need to debate whether or not they've blundered, that's
history.
It's their  post blunder behavior that I find most shameful and
insulting.
They could have avoided all of this ugly fallout with some sincere
concern and honesty in the beginning. Nathan or anyone authorized
to speak for Primenet could have said : There's something wrong here and
we must be part of it. We apologize and we are going to shut this thing
down to find out why it misfires. I would have had little or nothing
more to say
on the matter in that conciliatory light.

Nathan chose the brawn approach to this unfortunate problem. It's not
working. 

> I am truly puzzled by your seemingly warm reception to the "number of
> messages" you've received from "various legal professionals". "Not
> soliciting business" my dying ass! Can you spell "Ambulance Chaser"?

Sure, I'm not naive , I understand what their entreaties are all about.
But so what, I'll take their kind words. 

> yet you
> flaunt the fact that these parasites are courting your pleasures!

I didn't do any flaunting and you know it. Stop being so dramatic !

> At least I know the difference between SPAM and customer relations,
> greedy, self-serving solicitation from honest service-minded inquiries,

These are merely opinion and of course you're entitled.

> and third-party from contract _employees_.

And this is not even relevant because the issue we've been discussing in
this thread involves *third party independent contractors*.

> (I know a shark when one's
> swimming in the water nearby too. They smell like lawyers.)

More opinion . 


Charlie McCann   
-- 
The fact is that Primenet turns over confidential/personal customer
information from their data base to Telemarketing Firms to be used for
purposes never intended by their customers.