New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Google translate this - One dog and two Coca Cola please - in Korean. Wow! Nice experience
Not exactly. You miss one criteria for the definition: "designedly"
The definition of scam is this:
an illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking peopleIt is synonymous with fraud. Scam needs a plan, scammer knows what he is doing and he intends to do it. In real corporate world, this is a bankruptcy. I think he started with the best intentions on creating a valid hosting company, but he is incapable on doing this.
Pratt is another chapter. He was knowing from the start what he was doing. "Selling" hardware, taking the money and never send the equipment. That;s fraud.
In linuxthefish case, I guess that he was not intentionally run the business that way.
Was he fulfill his obligations to his clients? No.
Did he disappear choosing not to answer to them, even if he was reading the screams? Yes.
Did you took the right decision banning him? Absolutely yes.
I think @Nekki does have right here. Linuxthefish acted childish here, not willing to face his second failure. No, his acts are not excusable, but there is a line of impotence and miserable handling from fraud.
Just my 2 cents
I get it, but if I say that one must prove intent to say "scam" and one can never prove someone's intent, one can never say "scam." I just think that's being too picky. Whether up or down is the right direction to wipe, I still have to wipe. I can't just sit on the toilet all day contemplating the best way to do it. The day progresses most effectively when I just do it and move on.
We're essentially just at odds over the language used, whilst most would agree that the person in question has no place on LET.
I'd say 'unfit to be a provider', you'd say 'scammer'.
Meh.
is not confortable or what ? please develop this ....
Not particularly. I do think that it would be of value to invest in a more comfortable toilet.
Apparently the squatty potty is all the rage these days.
The dream?
"For the best poop of your life"
I'll be the judge of that. I have high standards.
I'm too old to have elongated discussions on the internet, particularly over the use of words.
So you've got to get one just to find out, right?
I agree and you failed here... In the other way.
If you say he was friendly and good in your book, then calling him a scam is going the opposite anyone would expect.
I mean, it is like in the case of the jew or gay joining the nazis, they thought there is something wrong with them and tried to reassure themselves they are "normal" too.
In this case, you are bashing the guy because you could be perceived to be too friendly to him.
I am sure he did not plan it.
OK, not owning, it is another thing and you gave him a reason not to by banning him, which is nice, still, the fact he does not come here to apologize and does not repay the money he probably doesn't have anymore, that does not make him a scammer, just a shy bankrupt guy hounded down for coffee money, which probably feels like shit for more reasons now.
TL;DR version: Et tu, Brute?
Replaced the toilet seat a few months ago 10/10 would recommend. It was a hit with my house mates too :P
this is the solution !
"Elongated"
Feels like an obligation at this stage.
Literally every single time I act against my own bias and hold myself accountable to what I would do if it were anyone other than the person in question, someone accuses me of acting out of bias by not acting from my bias.
Yet acting out of my own bias gets me even more accusations of acting in a biased manner (and reasonably so).
It is the single most bizarre trend I have ever dealt with on LET. No win scenario. Fuck it. Can't care about it if nothing I can do is right. When both action and inaction result in similar complaints, I'll just pick the one I think is right and go about my day.
There was a time in my life that 'The Great Cornholio' was the funniest thing in the world to me.
'I NEED TP FOR MY BUNGHOLE!'
Was?
Well, you did well by banning him, that was the action, I don't agree with the wording, the ban was almost certainly justified and you help him too in this case, this is a win-win situation, but calling him scammer has no justification as you do not have his motivation which, knowing the guy, is almost surely NOT bad ab initio (a requirement to justify that wording). I have met a lot of scammers in my life and they never behaved like that.
One dog and two Coca Cola for @cociu and two dogs and one Coca Cola for @Nekki because NK MaxMind won't allow to change orders..
Ok, I was just trying to make it look like I'd matured a bit since age 14.
'NICARAGUA!'
Ok, I'm calling it now. Stop smoking crack immediately before you post.
The hare and the bear meet in the forest.
Hey, bear, let me buy you a drink today!
Okay, but no tricks...
They go in the bar the hare orders:
"One big bourbon for me and one coca-cola for the bear. "
The bear says nothing, drinks his coke but once out he tells the hare:
"Hey, I said no tricks, but, ok, it was mildly funny, next time don't do it, agreed?"
"Sure, bear!"
The exact same scene repeats the second day, except the hare orders 2 coca-cola for the bear. The bear drinks in peace both, except when they leave he beats up the hare badly.
Third day, the hare once again invites the bear for a drink.
"Are you sure you learnt your lesson?"
"Sure, bear, you see, I can hardly stand..."
"OK, let's go!"
Once inside the hare orders:
"One big bourbon for me and one coca-cola for the bear, if he drinks too much he becomes violent!"
So, good sirs, where is a list of the Bad Hosts?
Sure, providers have maxmind, poopwand, fraudrecord, whatever and I don't see anything like that for the other side. No, I don't want you to pick up on only one guy and mull over juridical definition of his status. He can restore services, bankrupt or face the prosecution. What I'm talking about is the whole chain of corporate responsibility.
Example: it was mentioned above that Dedistation was owned by another hosting company, operating on LET. This should be cleared up and make transparent for everyone's view. There is a reason why rules state open whois and company information to receive a provider badge - to keep them accountable.
Ban is necessary, but if ban is the only thing they face then nothing prevents bad providers to keep spinning up legal entites and trick people into trusting them. Is Host.us owns Dedistation parent company? If so, then let them clean the mess, right the wrong and be all happy. If not, add them to the list!
It would make a good sticky to see all the information with links about providers who both failed their obligations to clients and refuses to deal with it in a mature fashion. Company name, their representative's name and nicknames, parent and daughter companies with detailed information on that too. Let's not make it a "scam list" because only judge should decide that. Bad providers list is good and accurate enough.
HostUS doesn't own DediStation. They own his previous brand only.
Dedistation claims to be operated by HOSTWITHLINUX LIMITED which is owned by Hostus Solutions Llc.
Nope. Where does it claim such?
Hmm. The Dedistation site says the following in the footer:
Mailing address: HostWithLinux Ltd, 54 Bondgate, Darlington, DL3 7JJ, United Kingdom
And this thread from December 2015 - drama aside - states that their panel was located at
vpscp.hostwithlinux.net, and HostUS' AlexanderM responded to the issue.I don't know if something changed hands in the meantime, but there's definitely a connection there.
EDIT: This company registration seems to confirm the (past?) ownership of HostWithLinux by HostUS
LLCLtd.EDIT2: More confirmation.
On their website at the very bottom?
Unless there is an other Dedistation I'm not aware of.
@Ishaq - the DediStation website lists HostWithLinux as contact address/company.
See: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1627453
There's an explicit statement/disclaimer from @AlexanderM of HostUS that they acquired HostWithLinux but they have NOTHING to do with DediStation.
Apparently AlexanderM/HostUS is still listed as a Director for HostWithLinux per (relevant) company records.
Hopefully @AlexanderM can also clarify whatever he knows.