[Coco] Roger Taylor responds to the ByteCellar warning post

[Robert Hermanek]

Am I the only one confused about all the anger on the bytecellar "tale"
below that is directed at Cloud-9?  I don't get how the two are related at
all.  Roger sold stuff.  Cloud-9 sold stuff.  Attempting to blame cloud-9
for Roger's problems makes no sense to me.  We're all just a bunch of coco
enthusiasts right?  You buy from who you like, or you build your own stuff,
right?  I've bought all kinds of gizmos from the folks at cloud-9, because
apparently they are much smarter than me and design stuff I could never
figure out on my own.  I'm a happy customer and hope to be again.

-RobertH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Blake Patterson" <blakespot at gmail.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Roger Taylor responds to the ByteCellar warning post


> Yea. This latest pisses me off.
>
> Roger Taylor is a straight up thief. A criminal.
>
> http://www.bytecellar.com/2012/01/10/a-cautionary-tale-for-the-tandy-coco-community/#comment-13764
>
>
>
> bp
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Stephen H. Fischer
> <SFischer1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> YES for certain.
>>
>> See my previous post about Roger.
>>
>> SHF
>>
>> There are two, many times repeated, posts on Usenet that are just as
>> vicious, the posters are very sick.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Wolfe" <aawolfe at gmail.com>
>> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Coco] Roger Taylor responds to the ByteCellar warning post
>>
>>
>>
>>> Although I'm sure it won't happen, it really would be best for all
>>> CoCo enthusiasts if Roger and his mistakes were just put behind us.
>>>
>>> There is a great deal of new, forward movement and cooperation between
>>> current members of the community working on some great projects.
>>>
>>> There is no need to bring this mess into the light again.  Let it die.
>>>
>>> $0.02
>>>
>>> -Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Blake Patterson <blakespot at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Last comment (a few specific other-commenter comment responses higher
>>>> up in the list also).
>>>>
>>>> "...
>>>> Blake and Cloud-9 alone may have killed the business that Roger Taylor
>>>> worked hard to build with a customer base of over 800 CoCo users
>>>> around the world."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bytecellar.com/2012/01/10/a-cautionary-tale-for-the-tandy-coco-community/
>>>>
>>>> I came into the scene not knowing which or where, ordered what seemed
>>>> an appealing product, got burned - twice - and gave a cautionary
>>>> synopsis to the retro fans that read my blog. I Wasn't looking for an
>>>> opportunity to destroy someone's business. I think if there had been
>>>> better representation up front, things would be different. True, I
>>>> would not have ordered the device (twice), but I also would not have
>>>> gotten burned and been in a position to share the experience.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if I should feel guilty, somehow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Coco mailing list
>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
>
> -- 
> --
> Heisenberg may have slept here.
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>