[Coco] A warning to readers regarding Roger Taylor

[Blake Patterson]

Thanks.

The community paying me is the last thing I want, though. Knowing the delicacy of such communities, I am not of a mind to in any way tax one. I would be fine, in all honesty, just getting one Drive Pak -- soon -- and being done with it. I'd be satisfied there, as my frustration here is having this CoCo 3 that I am so interested in exploring, just sitting here for 11 months doing nothing. I've got some kind of Home Ledger cart and Canyon Climber - that's it.

Please do not consider raising funds to satisfy me, personally. That's nothing that I want.

Thanks, though.




bp

On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:11 AM, Fedor Steeman wrote:

> All right, Blake, I do apologize for veering off like that at first
> instance. That is the emotional response one might expect when a situation
> like this is handled as Mark explains very well here. I mean, you could
> also have asked other people here about their experiences before starting a
> campaign like that. Reading your blog again, I acknowledge that you only
> state the dry facts and how you feel about it, and are not actually
> slandering anyone there.
> 
> It goes without saying that Roger got himself into trouble. We here at the
> CoCo community have been overbearing with Roger for a very long time,
> because he actually has been contributing so many good things, often for
> little or no money at all.
> 
> I am sorry about your experiences. Since Roger actually may not be capable
> of a deserved refund, I was wondering if some of us would chip in to
> compensate? Eighteen of us contributing 10 dollars would be enough, I
> reckon. I know we have in a similar manner been contributing to keep the
> coco3.com website running while he was in charge of it. I also remember we
> helped Diego out when he got into trouble. I believe Roger deserves another
> chance, but shouldn't he close down those eBay deals that he cannot deliver
> first, though?
> 
> Cheers,
> Fedor
> 
> On 12 January 2012 09:48, Blake Patterson <blakespot at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark McDougall <msmcdoug at iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm adding my $0.02 against my better judgement...
>>> 
>>> IMHO Blake your only mistake in all of this was to urge readers to avoid
>>> Roger Taylor. Up until that point you offered an impartial, factual
>> account
>>> of your dealings and for anyone to suggest you were slandering him is
>>> completely absurd. Some of the responses to your post have themselves
>> been
>>> well, you couldn't say slanderous but at the very least - childish.
>>> 
>>> What you should have done is ended your blog with a caveat and simply
>>> recommend that any potential customer consider your experience and at
>> least
>>> they'll go in with their eyes open.
>> 
>> You may have a point here. It was not my intention going in to destroy
>> Roger's operation, but to share an experience that to me seems
>> entirely unreasonable (particularly the eBay scenario).
>> 
>> I have adjusted the conclusion of my article in a fashion that leaves
>> more to the discretion of the reader. I appreciate your comment, here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> bp
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Heisenberg may have slept here.
>> 
>> --
>> Coco mailing list
>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>> 
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco