Quote from: Inaba on August 27, 2013, 03:13:19 AM

Quote from: Dalkore on August 27, 2013, 03:09:22 AM

Quote from: Inaba on August 27, 2013, 02:51:40 AM

Quote from: Dalkore on August 27, 2013, 02:11:44 AM

Quote from: Inaba on August 27, 2013, 02:02:56 AM

Quote from: Dalkore on August 27, 2013, 01:20:39 AM

Quote from: SirWizz on August 27, 2013, 12:14:06 AM

That's NOT their mandate. You have to inform yourself, and take responsibility for your decisions. If BFL have wronged you in some way feel free to join the people currently planning a lawsuit against BFL...

Actually preventing serious black-eyes that harm the adoption of Bitcoin is or should be part of their mandate. Actually if they DID do something it would lend them a ton of credibility with a core group that has been slow to embrace the foundation.

Yeah, I'm sure a core group of rabid, psychotic, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts with personality disorders are real high on their priority list. You do realize that the "core" group you're referring to are looked at as nutjobs by everyone but themselves, right?

Which conspiracies are you talking about Josh? You may want to focus on a few fringe "people" but actually I was referring to the group of people who distrust centralization which is a much larger group than you give credit.

P.S. Hint, this group is not all "rabid, psychotic, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts" as you like to characterize them.

Ok, so how would the Bitcoin Foundation "going after" BFL do anything for these people you are referring to?

I don't want them to just "go after" anyone, that is irresponsible. But there have been some very very valid concerns about some of the claims and and business tactics by Butterfly Labs Inc. The community, not just the rabid, psychotic, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts have tried over and over to have you address respectfully and intelligently that in my opinion have not been addressed.

Josh, you specifically have seemed to go out of your way to make that the most difficult and painful process coming from BFL's head of PR which in the manner you have held yourself, makes you having that title a mockery of all real professional public relations experts, but I digress on that point.

And what would these "very very valid concerns" be that haven't already been addressed elsewhere? Please keep in mind, that what you might consider a "very very valid concern" isn't really a "very very valid concern" as the general world/business world understands it. Asking for proprietary and/or non-public information would be an example of this. You may *really* *really* want to know that information, but it's not normal or reasonable to ask for it and that's why it hasn't been provided. Just because you *really* *really* want to know something doesn't make it "very very valid."

I look forward to your answer.

You really think it has anything to do with people wanting to know non-public information?

1. Mis-leading statements & advertising on delivery schedule
2. Mis-leading statements on performance claims initially
3. Disrespectful Customer service primarily by you (Josh)
4. Whole-fully inadequate customer service responses that basically were intentionally misleading to cover for issue #2 mentioned above.

Try directly responding only to these issues without addressing me or giving excuses on why. I am only listing these because you asked me directly and I owe you that much. You are the company so it doesn't matter what people do or say, proper business means holding yourself to a higher standard.

Note: If I came across as directly advocating BCF to do this action, it should not be taken there because I have no business relationship with BFL so I was not directly affected by these claims that have been brought up many times by many miners. What I was addressing that if BCF did take this issue on, it would give them creditability for addressing an issue that rightly or wrongly is a big issue with a large amount of miners. If anything, they would be doing you a favor by opening a dialogue with BFL and allow you to address and make amends to issues which I DO believe are valid. I am just not advocating that BCF do that, by I am giving the observation that it would help them with a core group of users.