Re: The latest Brinkle in my life

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob La Londe wrote:
> "Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:iVOWi.168844$1y4.87484@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> After more than a few rounds of email ping pong, my hosting provider
>> (Mecca ehosting.ca) has decided that the latest revision of "Tech Help!"
>> which I'm currently hosting at
>> http://wwww.yoursecuritysource.com/faqs.htm is far too "controversial"
>> for them.  They have given me twenty-four hours to remove it, or they'll
>> cancel my account.  I find it interesting that they are still unable to
>> point out where I've violated their terms of service other than
>> referencing Mr. Sableman's letter which also doesn't provide much in the
>> way of information (although it is cleverly worded to "push" all the
>> right "buttons").
>>
>> I'm no longer hosting the program that was "banned" under the terms of
>> the Injunction against Jim.  That program was called "Tech Help Beta".
>> The version that I am hosting makes no reference to "Brinks panels"
>> what-so-ever.  It does call them what they are and places them in the
>> correct manufacturer's category (I don't see it as any different than
>> the ADT panel cross-reference list Jim also provides in "Tech Help!").
>>
>> Brinks still hasn't contacted me directly regarding this issue.  The
>> "prefer" to get to me through my hosting provider, which they no doubt
>> view as the "weaker link" in all this.  You see...  it's much easier for
>> a high powered lawyer like Mark Sableman to intimidate people in a
>> company that knows nothing about security systems or how the industry
>> "works".  Once you start throwing words around like "TOS Violation", it
>> raises a few hackles in *all* the right places.
>>
>> Sableman appears bent on learning about "Canadian Justice" though, and I
>> figure I'm just the guy to "teach" it to him.
>
> LOL.  Gonna sue him in Canadian court?


I'm sure as heck not going to post my strategy in a public forum.  And
what, sir, is wrong with "Canadian Court"?