NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Reply to Personal Attack by Steve Podrachik
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Reply to Personal Attack by Steve Podrachik
Mark J. Welch, Esq. (markwelch_at_ca-probate.com)
Tue, 09 Sep 1997 14:58:02 -0700
Steve Podrachik just posted an email message in which he selectively
quoted from a lengthy telephone conversation in which he repeatedly
threatened to sue me for interfering with his company's marketing. He
refuses to acknowledge that sending unsolicited commercial email was
wrong (and I don't ask him to do so). He repeatedly pressured me
with leading questions and constantly sought to twist my words during the
conversation; although I sought to correct his deliberate misinterpretation
of my words, I finally had to leave for a meeting and told him goodbye.
His response was to post an email message calling me a "wacko" who
objected to receiving mail from a list I REGISTERED or, and
misrepresenting my comments and statements, to support his claim
that I am acting "maliciously." So what's really going on?
First, Mr. Podrachik repeatedly states -- falsely -- that I was a willing
"registered" member of a "list" to receive announcements, and that
I was a "member" of another organization. In fact, I am simply one
of several thousand web publishers whose sites are listed in Focalink's
MarketMatch database; I am not a "member" and I have never agreed
or "registered" to receive any announcements other than Focalink's
own reminders to update my listing or announcing changes in their
service. I did not ask Focalink to send me marketing materials on
behalf of other companies, and they never advised me or any other
web publisher that they would do so.
Second, I objected because what I got was an unsolicited commercial
email signed by Mr. Podrachik's employee, Steve Sanders, and
containing a marketing pitch for the company's statistical-analysis
and tracking software. I have no idea how the software works;
since I don't do business with spammers, I will never know, and
I will assume that it performs all its advertised functions better
than any competing product, at lower cost.
Third, during our telephone conversation, Mr. Podrachik kept
restating my comments, adding qualifiers and then removing
them, and twising my words to his own ends. I stated my
clear opinion that I would not do business with any company
that sends unsolicited commercial email, and that I would urge
a boycott of such companies, including his. He then spent
several minutes twisting my comments, repeatedly stating
that he believed I was saying that I would act illegally to
damage his company. I repeatedly corrected him, stating
that I would use only lawful means to respond to unethical
spam, which I also believe is illegal. Finally I stated quite
clearly in reply to his questions that yes, I did wish that
my boycott campaign could drive his company out of business,
although I recognized that this was far beyond my power.
I also acknowledged that although I believe that the federal
"junk fax" law prohibits unsolicited commercial email, I
recognized that some attorneys disagree with me on this issue,
and that the question has not yet been tested in any court.
Mr. Podrachik twisted this polite acknowledgement by saying
I had just admitted that my opposition to spam was "not legal."
(In other words, if sending spam is legal, then speaking out
against it is illegal.) I never said I would do "whatever I could"
to damage his company.
Mr. Podrachik then wrote to this list (in part):
> However, what I found most disturbing was his statement
> "... I'd like to put your company out of business.." and the
> absolutely clear statement that he would do whatever he
> could to damage my company.
> I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like malicious intent to me.
> If someone says that they are intentionally going to damage
> your company, fully understanding that they have no legal
> basis for statements that they are making, doesn't that sound
> at least highly immoral if not illegal?
Mr. Podrachik then uses his distortions of my comments to compare
me to murderers of abortion doctors, and asking others to admit that
his position as the victim of a religious jihad is something that could
happen to anyone. (He's right, of course: there are extremists out there
who murder abortion doctors, and there are religious terrorists who
blow up marketplaces.) But none of this has anything to do with my
LAWFUL posting in which I requested that people BOYCOTT
Marketwave and Focalink, for a specific reason, which I clearly identified.
I even went so far as to acknowledge that many members of this
list would disagree with me regarding whether this particular email
was "unsolicited commercial email" or "spam" (Mr. Podrachik's
first email to me stated, "Clearly, this is not spam," which I disagree
with but again, we all have different definitions of "spam").
I believe that Mr. Podrachik's distortions and misstatements
in his personal attack on me demonstrate more reasons not
to do business with his company. But again, members of this
list are free to agree or disagree as they wish.
-- Mark J. Welch, Esq. (510) 462-8483 http://www.ca-probate.com/
-- This message is NOT legal advice, and is NOT confidential.
-- Web Site Banner Ads and Web Counters: http://www.markwelch.com/
-- Small Office / Home Office Consumer: http://www.sohoconsumer.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
Money Minded debuts Oct. 1 on http://homearts.com, the #1 Lifestyle
Site for Women. It's straight talk on personal finance and investing.
-------
Get information on over 1700 interactive advertising opportunities,
search by content categories and preview sites using our new online
companion! ** http://www.srds.com/iashp.htm **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
