Re: The latest Brinkle in my life

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems that your monthly payment to your ISP is not enough to risk them
suffering a legal bill of several thousand dollars for protecting your
interests. And I hear this guy may not like SLAPP suits? Seems like he could
teach a fat sack like me a few things about throwing his weight around.
After all, it is only about winning at this point. I don't think these guys
are looking for any lessons, especially on subject they seem to care little
about, things like fairness and justice for instance. I think that you'll be
forced into taking some expensive and onerous actions against Stinks to push
this any further.  Someone really has their teeth in this one, and is
looking to really chew things up. Brinks like all things has its share of
enemies. I assume they know who those enemies are and don't think there is
much harm the enemies can do. If you try and face Brinks by yourself you
might not last as long as poor Jim did. I strongly suggest getting some help
form as many quarters as you can. I don't think these guys are going to be
happy with just shutting down your access to an ISP to host your site. I
would expect more trouble with them than just this. A little offense here
might be a good defense.

"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.