11 July 2005

PubSub employee identified as blog spammer

Summary

Mud's Tests is pleased to report we have identified the spammer. His name is EUGENE Y. JEN and he is an EMPLOYEE of the PUBSUB Incorporated company.

Some talk about blogging ethics. When the developers comply with IEEE requirements/ANSI standards and ACM standards, maybe I'll believe they're serious about following blogging ethics. I remain unconvinced they want to be held accountable to any standard; rather, developers want the public-cusomter to comply with some illusory "performance standards" not applicable to developers. Absurd!

PubSub recently combined forces with GEOMETRIC GROUP to create Monitor110 a search platform for investment banking companies and hedge funds.




Free Spam!


PubSub also provides search support for RSS and Atom feeds on the internet. Part of PubSub's job is to set up peering relationships. Eugene's job was in part to establish these connections using a T1 account.

Eugene Y. Jen spammed this blog less than 6 months ago. Keep in mind, at the very time that he was spamming this blog, Wyman and his "friends" at PubSub were feigning shock about the problem with spam.

Is it not ironic that at the time there was a spam summit, the one person who was contributing to the spam problem worked for PubSub?

Also, isn't it curious that the spam occurred just as WYMAN was denying there was a problem with PubSub?

Later, we find out that the denials were worthless: PubSub in fact corrected the code [that they said there was no problem with] and it was shown that Wyman's PubSub platform was not actually working as advertised. There were problems.


And these problems showed up during the December 2004 Tsunami in Asia. Alerts didn't go out. Those who had signed up with the PubSub system, if they had used some of the RSS options, were unable to get the information they wanted.

The problem continued to occur during the subsequent Alaska Tsunami Tests.

Eugene Y. Jen is a known blog spammer. Beware all! PubSub likes to hire people who, in my personal opinion, want others to be quiet about problems.

Spamming is not a good thing to do.

To be clear, we are not accusing EUGENE of a crime; only reporting that we found out who spammed this blog; and the curious timing this spamming had in relationship to the SpamSummit and various PubSub technical challenges indepdently reviewed and reported.

Has PubSub recently been jilted?

  • Who was behind the action to spam the blog?

    What could PubSub theoretically do to make problems go away? Maybe they have some ideas.

  • PubSub Employee Spam Policy for Peering Requirements

    Does PubSub have a spam policy; also, is that spam policy not enforce, contrary to some peering requirements?

  • Public Relations

    When did CooperKatz no longer consider PubSub a client?

  • Good will

    Are others no longer working with PubSub?

  • Scope and terms of ongoing relationship

    Is there evidence that despite "no longer having a relationship with the advertising agency," various employees were still having some sort of interaction electronically with their old public relations firm or employees, despite apparent public statements to the contrary?

  • Reasonable public conclusions about the relationship ending

    If the formal relationship between the advertising agency and the primary client is not longer viable and has "ended," would it not be appropriate to expect that there be no contact between [a] PubSub and [b] the prior client, its officers, employees and the intellectual property, pamphlets, personnel associated with the advertising agency?

    Could the former advertising agency please describe the terms of the "we no longer have a relationship": Was it 100% "no contact," or was there a period of time that information would continue to flow back and forth between the client and the agency?

    When does the advertising agency expect the data transfer and clean-up issues following contract-termination will result in 100% "no contact" between the agency and client?

  • Mixed signals: More credibility problems?

    Why would some publicly assert "there is no longer a relationship or interest" but the employees were still going to the site that "they no longer had a relationship" with?

  • Post-Relationship Conduct is curious

    Does this mean that the relationship really isn't over; or is that the relationship was suddenly terminated without warning; or is it because they want to monitor what a previous partner is now saying?

    See the pattern? Someone gets banned, a relationship is severed, or there are overt and clear signals that things are no longer the same, but they keep coming back to monitor the situation.

    What's up with that?

    It's kind of like they don't like it when someone comes to a conclusion or reaches a decision: They come back to monitor what is going on. That sounds like they're emotionally attached to a situation, yet they've taken action that would send a signal that the relationship is "over."

    Indeed, the relationship is over, but only on their terms. Aha! To what do we enjoy having this rather arbitrary standard imposed? Oh, will we have more denials:

    "I didn't do it . . . " or "It wasn't me . . . " or "we never agreed to actually end the relationship in that way . . . "

    Indeed, their personal take clear actions that would send a clear signal that they no longer desire to have a civil interaction; but when their conduct is called on the carpet for all to see, they deny it thinking that nobody would dare believe those who question their veracity.

    How long has this been going on?

    How many people in a similar situation have been ridiculed, then efforts were made to apparently deny what was actually done?

    Does someone have such a "high standing actually made out of illusions" that they are insecure with themselves to simply "let go" of what is no longer an interaction?

    It is as if they want to impose "their discipline" on those who dare say what is self-evident, but when it comes to having some sort of accountability for that conduct, they turn to their chorus of enablers who do not realize they have been deceived.

    Yet, despite the initial conduct that would warrant an immediate end to the interaction, they then turn around and closely monitor the words and actions of those who dare speak.

    Quite a mixed signal, especially when they take bold action to send a clear signal they are not civilized and have no regard for a relationship; but when a decision is made to end the relationship and contact, they take it upon themselves to continue to monitor that which dared to challenge the inappropriate conduct.

    To that end, they have many denials and excuse. Plenty of stories. Do you plan to scream loudly; do you plan to threaten others; do you plan to track them closely as they go about their business?

    Why, if the public is led to believe that the interaction no longer is based on a formal contract does the interaction, monitoring, and surveillance continue?

  • If someone says this is "obviously" a "non-issue" are you going to believe them?

  • This is what [ he says ] . . . but what does he do?

    Note


    Feel free to disclose your "attorney-client" agreement authorizing you to act on anyone's behalf to issue statements as to whether the concerns outlined below have or do not have any merit.

    To be clear, no one has been authorized on behalf of anyone to assert "this is a non-issue" or "the issue is over". Such statements are not appropriate for they are not a party; nor have they been given any approval, authorization, or consent to act as either a mediator or adjudicator.

    Regardless their jurisdiction, it would be appropriate that anyone asserting that "this doesn't matter" would appropriately review the legal foundation upon which you are publicly asserting that this conduct deserves not scrutiny. If the issues do not matter to you, then perhaps you may wish to explain on your own blog why the conduct "doesn't matter". Indeed, if the conduct "doesn't matter" why so much energy spent on "that which doesn't matter"? Ah, no answer: The strange disconnect between what one spends their time on, versus what they publicly assert is "not an issue."

  • Why the inconsistency?

  • Why spending so much time on an issue that "doesn't matter" or is "over"?

  • Surely, if there were questions about the mental capabilities of those who dare notice reality, why would you continue to be worried about what is or is not here?

  • What will happen if the issue doesn't end and the discussion continues?

  • Or are you saying that it would be more appropriate that one keep silent about matters of public interest related to corporations engaging in commerce, transactions, public discourse, and public behavior?

  • What kind of reward, favor, benefit, profit, reward, financial award, or other valuable consideration [if any] are you provided in order to induce others to believe that someone's personal opinions based on findings of fact are without any merit?

    Perhaps, inter alia. . .

    * Perhaps you live in a land where your arrogant leaders talk about the freedoms you fight for or have enshrined in your Constitution; but you agree only with that right to expression and use of information technology when that conclusion is consistent with what you desire, not necessarily with reality;

    * Perhaps it has grown into fashion where you reside to only agree to the exercise of those freedoms when that opinion and conclusions are consistent with what you have been told or want other to believe;

    * Perhaps you only speak out when the conclusion is contrary to what you want others to believe;

    * Perhaps many of your kind continue to assert conclusions without regard to the subsequent evidence which show your initial conclusions were not only flawed be devoid of reality; and/or

    * Perhaps despite admissible evidence which may be the fruit of electronic discovery, you continue to assert your preliminary conclusions despite admissible evidence to the contrary.

    Indeed, you may wish to disclose the basis upon which you are asserting that the issues are not to be considered; and certify in writing that you are not in direct or indirect receipt of any financial or other valuable consideration for any statements suggesting that a valid concern about unusual PubSub employee conduct need not be discussed, reviewed, or publicly examined.

    Not to worry, for it is indeed curious how quickly raise the siren to shriek that something "doesn't matter," yet they are not a party. You are irrelevant the louder who dare to speak of an issue to which you are not involved. But you continue to speak as if the world cares. They do, for it would appear they have been fooled that you are someone to be taken seriously, when you have not apparently taken the time to review what you have asked for.

    Curious.

    For would we not expect the requisite level of evidence to change once again when the initial conditions were met? Indeed, such would appear to be the case. But why expect anything else from those who initially deny that which they believe no one can prove.

    A small error.

    You would be wise to review your appropriate jurisdiction's legal guidance on attempting to mediate or act on the behalf of another without your having been adequately certified by your jurisdiction's legal oversight.

    You will cease and desist to assert affirmatively that the concerns outlined below do or do not have any merit. Rather, you are to state that those conclusions are simply your personal opinion and are not intended to provide legal advise nor any comment as to the legal merits of the issues outlined.

    If you do not understand what this means, then it would be appropriate for you to seek the advice of legal counsel. Nor should the following information be construed to be legal advice to any party. Rather, it is a personal opinion which may or may not be widely accepted, endorsed, or believed.

    If you do not understand that this is a personal opinion and have not discussed the following issues with a certified, trained, and licensed legal professional in your jurisdiction, then stop reading.

    PubSub's problems

    What apparently prompted Eugene to spam this blog was a public test result that was contrary to PubSub objectives. In short, various different subscription methods created RSS feeds that produced different results. At worst, some subscriptions produced no content while other subscriptions worked.

    Some of the results were desired; and other subscription methods produced no results. This was a problem. However, Wyman asserted on Jeremy Zawodny's blog that there was no problem or delays.

    I countered with the test results showing otherwise. The issue wasn't simply a delay, but that content would never show up unless corrected, and Eugene then showed up spamming my blog.

    Curiously, since then we now know that the problems continued. The results in subsequent tests during the Alaska Tsunami tests showed that not all the feeds were correctly reporting. How this was actually corrected, you'll have to talk to WYMAN.

    The point of the matter is that there was a legitimate difference between what PubSub management was asserting as their capability and the independent test results.

    The reason for exploring the issues with PubSub is that PubSub forms a baseline with which to compare the Monitor110 performance. The concern is that if the initial platform cannot work properly [PubSub], then whatever inherent coding issues are in the PubSub backbone would reasonably be expected to continue in the Monitor110 development and success.

    Is this a matter that warrants public scrutiny? Sure, because many firms are planning to invest considerable funds in technology to monitor public discussion of their firms. However, the problem we run into is when we compare the apparent QA methodology of the Geometric Group and compare it with what was going on with PubSub, there are a number of questions:

  • Why was PubSub still having problems after the transition and combination with Geometric Group?

  • What is the nature of the QA testing behind the PubSub effort; and how are the results in the Monitor110 going in comparison?

  • If there are problems with the PubSub baseline platform, and the QA efforts did not catch things, is there a reasonable chance that the same management and development-approach when applied to Monitor110 would have the same problems?

  • How do the actual management plans in place to address the Monitor110 development efforts compare with the actual management plans and performance in the PubSub-analogy?

    These seem reasonable questions and issues to explore. It is a separate matter whether PubSub likes or dislikes the conclusions.

    However, my concern is that at the very time that these issues were getting raised, Eugene Y. Jen shows up and starts spamming my blog. Not very nice, very disruptive, and raises a number of other questions.

    For we know that management assertions from PubSub have not compared favorably with actual PubSub performance as independently checked. Did management not like the questions being raised at the critical juncture of ramping up for the Monitor 110 development and final sales plans?

    It remains a matter of evidence and law whether the US Government seeks to review the matters.

    What's up with that?

    Of immediate interest, however, to the day to day user is something called FeedMesh. This is the idea of having blogs and websites simply ping one service, and then all the services will communicate with each other.

    Small problem. Apparently people are suggesting that the services are working and that FeedMesh is working fine. My tests show otherwise.

    In short, the issue comes down to credibility. What I find disturbing in the PubSub, Monitor110, and FeedMesh issues is that there is a common element: Bob Wyman. He says one thing, but when I go check things out, there seems to be a number of exceptions. I don't the patience with someone who says one thing, but my reviews come to opposite conclusions.

    Am I calling Wyman unreliable? I'm still in the "I would check everything that man says"-mode. I'm this close to simply saying, "Anything he touches, run away from." I haven't done that. Why? Because eventually things work, somewhat.

    Which brings us back to Eugene and his blog spamming. It's been 6 months since he did this. I find it curious that someone would do that. I suspect without evidence that Wyman and he agreed to do what they had to do to continue a favorable public relations effort.

    So that got me to checking. And what I found with the peers and the PubSub data performance in Asia raised many questions in my mind. I noticed a number of errors and dropped feeds. Unusual error rates. Sure seems, after looking at the NTTP peering data, which the performance levels were far below those of the overseas competitors in Asia and Europe.

    So what's going on with PubSub, Monitor 110, and Geometric Group? I would encourage the analysis to dig into the performance data; and get a good feel for what did or didn't happen during the pre-Geometric area; and come to an understanding of what did or didn't happen during the PubSub QA testing/how they missed stuff; and then at the same time I'd encourage the analysis to look at the effectiveness of management in translating these lessons learned into a better Monitor 110 product.

    But here's the problem. Let's say the analysis, who are supposed to "analyze" these products actually aren't independent. This is to say that if you take a step back at the issue: Aren't the very customers of the Monitor110 product the same firms that are financing the development and deployment?

    If that's true, then I have no confidence that there's legitimate market forces competing to ensure that the financial side of the investment house [the ones hoping to make money] are going to press the analysts side for the straight scoop on how much things will cost, potential schedule delays, or overruns.

    Does this have anything to do with Deutsche Bank? I have no idea. I suspect that it does.

    Which brings us back to the blog spam. If you wanted to shut someone up, wouldn't you spam their blog hoping they would shut down their site or dissuade public discussion?

    I have no idea. Let's look at the blog spam with Eugene.

    Details

    Eugene you shouldn't really have left your name on your blog all this time.

    The IP number has been traced to an E-mail with your name on it.

    And the comments you left in the blog have brought discredit upon not only yourself, but PubSub and Geometric Group.

    Wyman

    So it's been all this time and we find out that the piece of employee that you have named EUGENE Jen is the one who has been spamming this blog.

    He runs his own private blog.

    Here is his e-mail Eugene Y. Jen.

    What I want

  • A public apology;

  • A clear statement of what you're going to do to get him to stop spamming the blog;

  • An independent review of all his private e-mails and blogs that he's posted;

  • A complete discussion with all other members of the public who have had their blogs spammed by anyone of the PubSub employees;

  • A discussion with the Board of Directors of Geometric Group to explain why EUGENE was given free reign to spam others blogs;

  • A discussion with your PUBSUB peers to discuss with them whether the conduct of EUGENE Y. Jen raises doubts about PUBSUB ability to conduct its affairs as a peer;

  • A discussion with the peers within the RSS community such as the fine people at Technorati and David Sifry to explain what PubSub is going to do about EUGENE Y. Jen's blog spamming;

  • A complete account of all access EUGENE has had to PUBSUB commercial and intellectual property so that the entire world knows what kind of access he's had to your files, including dates, times, and locations;

  • A credible public statement to the RSS community, David Sifry, and other professional XML developers who carefully planned and successfully ran the Spam Summit, that answers the following question, "Why is your employee spamming the public blogs on company time?"

  • Again, to the same RSS community who successfully hosted the Spam Summit a reasonable explanation that responds to the following question, "Why is your employee using PubSub resources to spam public blogs?"

  • An appropriate notification to the public that all employees at PubSub are familiar with reasonable and appropriate standards of employee conduct; that such conduct shall not include blog spamming; and a certification to be made to the RSS community and David Sifry [who is the best RSS CEO, in my opinion] that there has been a reasonable discussion of the matters and that PubSub has adequately reviewed the material and employee standards of conduct and have appropriately ADMONISHED Eugene Y. Jen for his inappropriate comments made in a blog.

  • A reasonable statement of apology within a reasonable amount of time. I leave this up to the RSS community and the XML community and the Search Engine Optimization community to decide how long something like this will go without a reasonable CEO statement that the matter has been reviewed and there will be no more problems. I think a reasonable amount of time would be 30 days, but I am not holding you to any deadline as I have seen over the past year that you have a glacial response in responding to reasonable requests for responses to software errors on your site. Your responses have simply been one of denying the problems existed. That is not impressive.

  • A thorough review of the peer operational requirements by a party outside PubSub and some sort of credible certification that PubSub remains in good standing with respect to the following requirements:
    - Personnel have adequate ENGLISH speaking skills;
    - determination whether this type of blog spam by a peer amounts to network abuse; a review whether the peer's conduct has occurred elsewhere on the net;
    - and an appropriate review by NDSoftware who QUOTE "reserves the right to modify, replace, or nullify this document at any time without written notice". RefENDQUOTE

    Issues

    I find it outrageous that BOB WYMAN has preached about the benefits of RSS, but when his own company produces a product that doesn't work properly, and the public provides evidence that the RSS feeds have a problem in them. . . what happened?

    Apparently, EUGENE decided to spam this blog.

    Well, guess what! We no know about EUGENE and it remains a matter for the courts to decide whether the spamming was done at the time that PubSub was hoping to get VC funding.

    Too bad the public found out about Eugene's spamming.

    How many VC personnel inside Geometric Group have bought IPO shares of PubSub on the hopes that the product could be sold to investment banking firms?

    Wyman, you have done a very nice job at hiring someone like Eugene.

    At least you owe it to people like David Sifry who stood up for you: they stood by you while your product was questioned.

    Now we know why there was such an outburst about blog spamming. Their own employees were doing the spamming.

    It remains to be understood whether this was an orchestrated effort to distract attention from the needed product reviews going on at the time that the VC funding were taking place.

    Oh, indeed, it remains a reasonable question whether the blog spamming from EUGENE Y. JEN at PUBSUB was related to an effort to dissuade public discussion about the apparently flaws in the PubSub coding at the very time that VC funding deals were being negotiated.

    Was this material information? I think so, and it remains a matter of law under Rule 10b-5 whether this blog spamming was an effort to dissuade a reasonable inquiry into product ability, defects, or the suitability of get well plans.

    EUGENE! Did you actually believe you were going to get away with this blog spam?

    Daily NonSenses

    1. Eugene Has a blog

    Eugene's blog.

    2. Technorati captured Eugene's admission that he made rude comments.

    The spamming occurred 172 days ago. And here's the fatal admission where Eugene admits that he was being rude: look at his blog.

    Eugene then confirms that he is the author of the comments here and conforms that the comments were deleted.

    Eugene has admitted that, inter alia:

    A. he made the comments;
    B. the freely chosen comments were not appropriate for a professional employee;
    C. there were multiple comments;
    D. the pattern was no isolated;
    D. the current comments were from his blog;
    E. his DailyNonsenses blog is his blog;
    F. he was in control of that blog;
    G. the comments he is making on the DailyNonsenses blog are specific to unique and particularized comments on another blog that he knowingly made comments on, and did so willfully.

    It makes no sense that he'd be talking about "someone else's comments".

  • Why would Eugene make a comment about his comments being deleted unless he made the comment?

  • Why would Eugene be upset that someone deleted his comment?

  • Why would Eugene publicly confirm that the comments "may have been rude" unless he made the comments [plural]?

  • Why would Eugene talk about the "importance" of maintaining blog conversations unless he was the one making the comments in the blog?

  • Conversely, if he had "made no comment" why is he publicly making a comment and offering an apology about "a comment, comments, or spam he supposedly never made"?

  • Why despite the above admission that he was rude [as he recorded in Technorati], would EUGENE then say otherwise and assert he never spammed the blog; and

  • Why would others dismiss this as a "non-issue" . . . despite Eugene publicly asserting and recorded on his own blog in January 2005 that the comments were not appropriate?

  • How many multiple-matching comments in a blog are required before someone is reasonably held accountable for blog spam?

    3. On Eugene's blog is listed public his email; this account is also cross referenced and mentioned in Chinese.

    Eugene has publicly provided his E-mail on CPAN.

    Here's the link between Daily Nonsenses and Chinese Language.

    You may wish to discuss Eugene's use and/or connection with this Chinese site.

    If you wish to go back through the entire archive of this site, you can find the intersections of Eugene's postings and his IP address. Look for the following four codes for the intersection between Eugene's PubSub Address, his name, and his DSN locator information that is only available by using a PubSub computer. Here are the search parameters for discovery going back 5 years on this site, to confirm:

    Parameter 1: &file=M.1078297670.A [file reference]
    Parameter 2: 的大作中提到 [Cross reference, Chinese]
    Parameter 3: Eugene Jen
    Parameter 4: 1078298644.A&num=6284 [Message number]

    Alternate search string to confirm IP match: file=M.1078298644.A&num=6284

    When you do this search through the archives, discovery, or other methods for cross referencing, this is the message you will get. This message confirms the IP is associated with JEN:

    ----------------------

    •¢ÐÅÈË: eugene@pubsub.com (Eugene Y. Jen),

    ÐÅÇø: cnAdmin

    ±ê Ìâ: News feed wanted -- New York, NY, USA

    •¢ÐÅÕ¾: http://groups.google.com (Wed Mar 3 15:06:03 2004)

    תÐÅÕ¾: SJTU!
    news.ccie.net.cn!
    news.zixia.net!
    newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!newsfeed.medi

    ³ö ´¦: 64.81.193.23

    ----------------------

    ALLEGATION: On or about March 3 2004, Eugene Y. Jen did post the above message which you can subpoena from the original site.

    Translation this is the article which confirms JEN is linked to the above ISP, where to get it, and how to confirm that he is in fact, the one that is associated with PubSub at that IP address.

    4. We also know where Eugene Lives and this favorably compares with the IP address of PubSub

    Here are all the Chinese restaurants around Eugene's home; you can check his credit card purchases on the dates around 165-175 days ago and see that he was still making purchases around the IP number at PubSub.

    Here are the video camera locations in Chelsea near where Eugene lives. Notice that these tapes can be reviewed by anyone who has access to Echelon, GCHQ, or NSA. These tapes are located in back-up locations outside the American's control.

    5. Eugene's G-Mail account is listed on Daily Nonsenses

    Here is his g-mail account http://tinyurl.com/9j7qf.

    6. Eugene is listed in NYC

    Here is his public address in NYC and his phone number.

    7. Eugene has a problem with English

    Eugene has a very distinct problem with English. He makes errors. Here is a sample linking his identity, to PubSub, and his original e-mail and IP. Here is an archived version of that posted information from 2004.

    Notice in the e-mail at Technorati, the title: "Deletion of Comments considers harmful". This is the same type of English-error listed on his public peering comments.

    Also, note the same type of error in this version. It's not SPAINish. It's Spanish.

    And he's also posted on other Spanish cites. Notice the grammatical error called, "interesting". This makes no sense.

    8. There are other public e-mails that have both Eugene's IP address, his pubsub e-mail account, and his interest in PubSub peering

    If you would like message traffic going back two yes, the following files can be subpoenaed. It is an account in Chinese where Eugene has posted peering information and can be linked to PubSub, Eugene's name, his sign-in times, and also the PubSub peering computers. That information is available here.

    9. Eugene made comments about blog spam

    What kind of credibility is that if he's going to spam other blogs?

    10. Here's the link between the PubSub IP DSN and Eugene

    The IP numbers match PubSub origin.

    As confirmation of this IP number, here is the cross index to the PubSub main hub here.

    Further, as confirmation of his link to NNTP here is the RFC code linking Eugene to the PubSub nntp peering efforts here.

    But if that doesn't satisfy you, we still have another way of linking Eugene to this particular IP: Look at this confirmation: 05:36:51 64.81.193.23 dsl081-193-023.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net from 2003

    Here is Eugene's personal code for the network: EYYJEN.

    11. Eugene has publicly listed his PubSub e-mail address and his EYYJEN code

    Here is a sample from 2004 archives. Notice the pubsub e-mail address under his name.

    Also note that the "news feed wanted" terminology matches that which is at the Chinese site, message referenced above, dated Wed Mar 3 15:06:03 2004.

    12. Eugene's PubSub time records also match

    You can also subpoena the access codes for PubSub the following days to see that PubSub employee EUGENE Y. JEN did have access to the facility and was using the computer assigned [64.81.193.23] to him on these days:

    2005 04 02
    2005 04 01
    2005 03 31
    2005 03 30
    2005 03 25

    Translation: He was assigned to this computer on these days; the IP numbers match the access times; and he was using the computer on those days. He was getting paid to use that IP number and that IP number can be shown to have been accessed by him, and only him, on those days.

    Conclusions

    Technorati data shows us that Eugene Y. Jen did confirm that he made comments on a blog.

    In his Daily Nonsenses blog he left his G-mail account; this G-Mail name matches the name for the public employee information which Eugene freely left in the public and also all the CPAN index files and pubsub account codes..

    Public information shows us that Eugene Y. Jen has left his IP number and linked it publicly with the PubSub company.

    Eugene Y. Jen is an employee or has been an employee of PubSub engaged in various efforts.

    Eugene's name, confirming IP, and DSN information that are publicly available all point to the same computer in PubSub.

    PubSub is also associated with all the IP numbers and DSN information which Eugene used when making public statements about PubSub, the peers, and other goods and services provided by PubSub.

    Eugene also has demonstrated an interesting habit of making recurring grammatical errors. These IP numbers and names also occur on the same public news peers Eugene has publicly posted using his open e-mail, his open information, and his information linking him to PubSub.

    Eugene has done nothing to hide his relationship with PubSub; nor has he done anything on his personal website that would ensure there was no way to link his website to him as an employee of PubSub.

    Peers

    Now that you know who Eugene is at PubSub. You're probably wondering what he did there.

    Eugene's job was to find peers for PubSub to download and connect with. Here are some sample printouts of the peering problems PubSub was having.

    Notice as you go through the data that PubSub's performance levels are not all that high. here are samples of the printouts.

    It appears as though Eugene's job was to improve market share.

    In other words, despite the problems PubSub was having without heir code, and Eugene still being busy with his peering connections he not only had time to spam blogs [how many others I have no idea], but he still had time to travel from PubSub, visit a Chinese restaurant in Chelsea and snuggle back down to his home. Here is the map from Eugene's house to PubSub. It looks as though he takes the Number 4 to the south end of Manhattan where he goes to the place he likes to spam blogs from: PubSub.

    Here is another sample of the usenet requests which Eugene sent out using the computer he likes to use to spam blogs.

    Here is another account you can subpoena to get additional T1-request information related to PubSub, Eugene Y. Jen, and his computer used to spam blogs. Here.

    Source Forge

    While all the above was going on, Eugene still had enough time to work on independent projects. He has an account through source forge and this is the project he had listed at one time. Note the names of the people on the project: They are also associated directly or indirectly to PubSub.

    Here are the names that you can cross reference if you want to get more information about the friends of someone who likes to spam blogs:

    Malcolm Pollack
    Duncan Werner
    Bill Lovett

    Werener and Wyman are linked through First Rain:

    Here is the address which links Wyman to Werner, and indirectly includes Eugene through the Source Forge:

    Bob Wyman firstRain, Inc. 134 West 29th Street New York, NY 10001
    US Phone: +1 212 616 8700 Fax: +1 212 290 2734
    EMail: bobwyman@firstrain.com URI: http://www.firstrain.com

    Duncan Werner firstRain, Inc. 134 West 29th Street New York, NY 10001
    US Phone: +1 212 616 8700 Fax: +1 212 290 2734
    EMail: dwerner@firstrain.com URI: http://www.firstrain.com

    Some of the people used to work with WYMAN before he created PubSub.

    Is Eugene that "not busy enough with duties at PubSub" that he has time to go over the Source Force accounts?

    Clearly, he's got his priorities in question. Does this mean there's a management problem at PubSub; or are their employees using computers without adequate supervision; or are we to believe that someone broke into PubSub's account without Eugene Knowing about it . . . ?

    Curious, all these questions and nobody has answers. But why expect anything else.

    Eugene likes to spam so that the tough questions don't get answers.

    Got any more blogs to spam as a diversion from other PubSub Problems?

    Who cares, now the world knows.

    Have a bad day, Eugene. You're an idiot.



    Disclaimer: Mud's Tests is not affiliated with PubSub or their employees like Eugene Y. Jen who spammed this blog.

    Denials admissible when contrary to interests

    Go back to the Technorati feed: Why would he admit just after the event "that he may have been rude"; but then later deny having spammed the blog?

    He denied because he didn't realize there were copies of his spam still available.

    Was the reason he wanted the material "reposted" so that he could get access to the content and delete it? I think so.

    The only reason he denied it because he didn't know the evidence was available. He thought that the information was gone.

    Adequacy of management oversight, supervision, and training

    In light of the actual conduct that is contrary to the denial, there appears to be some actual, tangible perceived consequence or cost to the employee and/or others should the allegations prove true.

  • What perceived consequences did EUGENE and/or others perceive were possible if the allegations were true?

  • Conversely, if the employee did not understand what they were doing was inappropriate, why did they later apologize?

  • Did the employee perceive that he did or didn't do something?

  • Did the employee engage in conduct that he does not remember?

  • How frequently does the employee engage in similar conduct that is treated as if it "doesn't matter" or "isn't worth remembering"?

  • Does this show a pattern of behavior that suggests there is a problem with the employee’s ability to understand what they are doing?

  • Is this a timing issue in terms of having some sort of ebbing and flowing as to their understanding of issues: That on some days they recognize conduct is not appropriate; while on other days the same conduct is perceived to be "not a problem"?

  • Is there some sort of issue, problem, or oversight issue which needs to be addressed?

  • Are there actual risks of real consequences if the employee engages in this apparent "selective memory problem" when representing various financial interests, corporate officers, or others in the business community?

  • Is it appropriate for them to have unsupervised access to technology?

    Basis of denial

    In other words the "review and investigation into Eugene's spamming" was not a review of any electronic data, nor any review of any electronic information. Rather, it appears management simply relied on the initial denial.

    Rather, they simply looked at the denial and took it at what the employee wanted others to believe, not what the employee actual did.

    This is the wrong question: "What is the employee saying, not what is actually going on."

    The correct question is: "What is the employee saying; what actually happened; and is there any evidence that warrants continued confidence in this employee’s verbal/oral statements?"

    Looks more like the PubSub way of doing things: Listen to what people say, and ignore what is actually going on with their equipment, capabilities, and actual performance.

    We seeing a pattern here?

    Out of court statements and denials are admissible as an exception under the hearsay rule. Moreover, when the information in the denial is proven to be false, the denial can be used to impeach the witness before a Grand Jury.

    We know that the denial was freely made, under the false assumption that information did not exist; all the while that the actual conduct being denied did occur.

    Allegation: The denial was communicated freely, knowingly, and willfully with the intent that it be relied upon, knowing full well that the asserted denial was false and the actual conduct did occur.

    We also know that the denial was communicated, in electronic format, is recorded and has been relied upon by others. It remains a matter of law to what extent the original denial [without knowledge of the existence of the evidence] was materially relied upon by third parties.

    Specifically, it remains a matter for the court to decide to what extent, if any, any outside individual relied on the initial denial as a basis to disregard the indicators of the employee conduct, or raise questions about the management at the PubSub Corporations.

  • Were the denials material; what management, hiring, retention, or other contract considerations or other business decisions were made and secured based on this denial?

  • Were the denials relied upon?

  • Have contracts been secured, retained in place, or have other financial indicators warranting an increase in audit scope per SAS99 been dismissed when they should have been increased?

  • Did management, when given the information, appropriately investigate the claims independently of the employees denial?

  • Has the employee been inappropriately supervised?

  • Has management failed to appropriately review the initial denial?

  • Have outside business partners, associates and other financial colleagues continued to rely on the verbal statements and, in doing so, have been dissuaded to review the matters or other wise cancel contracts that can be terminated for cause or on the basis of morals issue?

  • Does the initial review of the information by management show that they have inappropriately reviewed the matter?

  • Does the management approach to information and problem solving and indicators of problems with both products and employee conduct amount to negligence?

  • What damages and/or economic losses have others incurred as a result of relying on the initial denials that have been shown to be contrary to the actual conduct?

    Details on the Spam

    At this juncture, what do we have? Eugene somehow believes that all the evidence is gone. That there is no record. That all the comments are no longer traceable.

    There's one small problem.

    Guess who has a parallel comment feed? That's right. This site has a multi-channel comment line.

    This is another way of saying that there's a ghost comment thread that exists, but you cannot see.

    When you overlay the new comment feed on top of the old one, all the old comments disappear, but there's still archived and still available for the court to get access to.

    This has been Eugene's fatal error. He didn't realize that the original spam that he left still exists in electronic format.

    As you go over the detailed spam that Eugene left, consider the following:

  • A. Notice that the posts are duplicate to the original message

  • B. Notice that the posts are repetitive in both comment-content and structure

  • C. That the posting in the particular blogs is not sequential. This is to say that he's not simply going back incrementally, but he's jumping around forward and backward [in terms of dates in the blogs he's commenting to]; but he's making the same comment over and over again.

    Review of the evidence

    What you're going see below are the copy-paste versions of the spam-comments which Eugene left on this blog. They are the versions which show that Eugene made comments in here that were repetitive; unhelpful; were substantially unrelated to the original blog-content; showed no regard for a logical progression; nor did it substantially contribute to the discussion.

    As you read the comments below, review what Eugene said in his blog about keeping comments as part of a "community" record. Oh, isn't that sweet.

    Surely, why would anyone put a standard on someone to "maintain" a record of their blog spam for all the world to see; while at the same time laughably having others believe that the retention of those comments would contribute to anything substantive related to RSS, this blog content.

    Rather, we are far more persuaded that the comments are nothing more than an effort to harass, annoy, and otherwise dissuade discussion and public comments.

    Moreover, it appears as though the blog spamming was more designed to dissuade keeping the blog-comments open. Rather, it appears as though the actual intent of the blog spamming wasn't to engage in any dialog [As Eugene Might wish some to believe], but the actual motive appears to be the contrary: To spam the blog, generate enough annoyance to shut down the comments, and dissuade a substantive dialog related to the PubSub technical issues.

    Going forward

    You can be the judge. But I find it particularly interesting that at this juncture the comments are not one that recognize the details of the comments; nor have there been any admissions that the blog spamming was inappropriate; nor has there been any real discussion about the real objective of the blog spamming.

    Details

    Here are the details. In here you'll see the repetitive nature; the multiple dates; the duplicate content; and the recurring comments.

    Keep in mind, what he’s doing is posting all this on the same day. He’s going backwards in time. Making posts in blogspots that have nothing to do with the original content; and in dates that have nothing to do with the original post date.
    Watch as he goes backwards in time.

    Notice he is skipping blogs.

    I see no useful purpose to this.

    Moreover, notice that the message is the same: It continues to repeat the same content. This shows that not only is he simply pasting the content, but providing no reasonable comment that is linked to the particular post that he is posting to.
    Who’s being childish?

    Note also the time sequence. The times are not sequential. Meaning that on the day that he is spamming the blog, he’s not going in any sequential order. Rather, he’s just randomly picking dates, jumping around, and throwing down blog comments.
    What is the basis for picking the particular blog? Random: That is spam.
    What was the basis for selecting a particular time? None: That is spam.
    What was the basis to choose a particular blog over another? None: That is spam.


    Strike 1: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here are two comments on the blog dated the 16th. Notice the time is just prior:


    Exhibit 1


    Posted to Blog Dated: 16 Jan 2005

    1 COMMENTS:

    Nonsense Master said...

    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:14 PM

    POST A COMMENT


    Here are two postings in the same blog [blog dated 13 Jan 2005]. Notice they are a duplicate not only in time but in content.


    Strike 2: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:



    Exhibit 2


    Posted to Blog Dated: 13 Jan 2005

    2 COMMENTS:
    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:11 PM

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:11 PM

    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 3: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here’s another posting on the blog dated the 13th:
    13 JANUARY 2005


    Exhibit 3


    Posted to Blog Dated: 13 Jan 2005

    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]

    1 COMMENTS:

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.
    7:14 PM
    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 4: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here’s one he posted during the same shot-gun-sequence, but this one was posted to the blog dated the 11th:


    Exhibit 4


    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]

    1 COMMENTS:
    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 8:34 PM

    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 5: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here’s one on the blog associated with the 10th:


    Exhibit 5


    Posted to Blog Dated:

    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]
    1 COMMENTS:
    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:12 PM
    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 6: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:



    Exhibit 6


    Posted to Blog Dated: 9 Jan

    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]
    1 COMMENTS:

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 8:35 PM

    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 7: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    This was posted to the blog dated 7 Jan


    Exhibit 8


    Posted to Blog Dated: 7 Jan

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:13 PM



    Strike 8: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:



    Exhibit 9


    Posted to Blog Dated: 4 Jan 2005

    Nonsense Master said...

    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 8:36 PM


    Review

    Above, you can see that the comments were repetitive, duplicative, and show not linkage to the original blog content. Again, notice the contrast between what he says; what he does in the above comments.

    Also, keep in mind what Eugene is publicly saying. It would appear that his comments are related to his incorrect assumption that the blog comments have been deleted and no longer exist.

    But there you have it above: The multiple blog comments.

    As you review Eugene's public statements in the revelations about what was actually done, keep in mind:

  • Has Eugene shown real remorse?

  • Has Eugene made statements that accept full responsibility for what he actually did?

  • Did the public statements and or private discussions with peers include statements that were based on Eugene's apparent incorrect assumption that the actual original spamming content no longer existed and would never be seen again?

    I think 10-plus comments would credibly be called spam. Especially given the lack of relationship between the comments and the substance of the blog EUGENE was posting to.

    Based on the initial "responses" from Eugene, is this someone you want to have your products associated with?

    Does PubSub management encourage its employees to spam blogs to get comments shut down so that the public cannot easily compare notes in public about the issues related to PubSub?

    Is PubSub management getting a credible response from their Employee on what they actually did as evidenced by above; or are the employee responses to date more consistent with an employee who incorrectly believes that the original comment-spam no longer exists and will never be seen by PubSub management?

    Some might suggest that the public association that certain products may or may not have with Eugene is immaterial. If this is true, why would Firefox go out of its way to include Eugene's name on the list appearing in the NYT?

    It would appear that Eugene's public standing is important; and that his relationship and proximity to the peering community, PubSub and other RSS-related products warrants sufficient public regard that his name [when placed on the Firefox ad] would generate substantial good will.

    Surely, if he had no standing, there would be no reason to include his name. Or are we to believe that the "list of names" on the FireFox site is "just a name" and nothing more?

    Then if that's true, then having "one's name listed on the Firefox Ad" surely isn't something to boast about. So it remains unclear:

  • Is Eugene of sufficient importance to PubSub and Firefox that his name generate some sort of public importance and avenue to persuade others to choose Firefox over competing web browsers?

    We can only wonder.

    Translation

    I don't want a trivial "response." I want an apology for what you have done. That means in your blog comments don't simply say, "response" but put "I apologize" in the title of your blog.

    Also, I want you to get back with your friends, management, and peers and make any appropriate changes or modifications to any electronic information you have sent out.

    To the world and especially RSS-users, I encourage you to review the above information, the specific blog comments, and ask both WYMAN and EUGENE: Are you still able to stand by your original statements about what you did or didn't do?

    Furthermore, those who are reading the 'responses' from WYMAN or EUGENE on their blogs, are you satisfied that their statements are made consistent with the reality that these comments were made?

    Or are you left with the impression that their current statements are based on the assumption that the original blog spam will never be seen by anyone else?

    Has WYMAN's or EUGENE's public statements that they have made to date been consistent with what actually happened; or are there statements consistent with what they believe you will be able to find out happened?

    In other words, after you have reviewed the above 9 exhibits [10+ comments ] showing in detail what EUGENE did do, and after confirming messages from WYMAN and EUGENE that they have read the above content, do you notice any change in the comment, tone, or statements that they have made either orally or in writing?

    Is the fact that the actual spam-content is now available change or adjust your perception of whether their initial public statements were consistent with what happened?

    To the peers: Based on the initial statements EUGENE publicly made in "response" to what he did, are you satisfied his initial responses were consistent with what happened, or were they statements that were made on the assumption that you would never have the chance to compare his statements in the spam to what he now is saying happened?

    To the members of the RSS community, SpamSummit, search engine companies, and other interested personnel in the XML community: Are you satisfied with the responses you are getting; are you satisfied that the communication between EUGENE and WYMAN is based on what actually happened; or are you more persuaded that the initial conversations were based on the assumption that the original blog spam no longer existed?

    If you are to ask either WYMAN or EUGENE to make a public statement on the status of management actions, progress, oversight, employee discipline, are you satisfied that they will look into the matters independently; or will they simply ask the employee who has engaged in spamming "whether they did it," and rely solely on the employees statements without regard to actual evidence contained in the PubSub IT?

    In the future, based on what you have seen in re WYMAN and EUGENE's initial responses, are you satisfied that if there is a problem it will be thoroughly and timely looked into; will the fact finding be based on actual data that is recoverable; or will personnel rely on perceptions and memories; or will management oversight occur simply on the basis of concurring with what is denied, not what is actually going on?

    Fantasy Media Interviews: Do not attempt this, you could get into trouble

    Can you imagine what the 1930's Bob Hope-Bing Crosby musical-version or ABC afternoon special version of this adventure could be like?

    Let's fantasize what that might be like. You are a member of the PR community. Your goal is to monitor how effectively corporations are in responding to public relations problems.

    You're living in a world where totalitarianism and corporate bullying exists. Where management and government go out of their way to deny problems and pretend the cardboard you're eating is sugar.

    What do you do?

    Imagine the following types of presentation scrolling across your screen. . .

    [Flashback -- Wavy effect, this is a sign that you are entering the Chelsea Zone ]

    For those of you in the PR community that would like to interview Eugene, you're probably wondering how to find him. Well, even though he might have a certain "issue" with various communication methods at this juncture, there is an interesting problem that Eugene currently has.

    At some point, he's going to have to go to the bathroom. Why? Because he's eaten food in the last few hours. What does that mean?

    Well, after he relieves himself, he's going to have to think about what? That's right: More food.

    He's got three options: He can either go to a Chinese Restaurant; sprint to a grocery store, or run as fast as he can to the ATM machine and get some cash.

    Well, in the event that Eugene isn't able to give you a straight answer to some very simply questions, as a courtesy to the media and my desire to facilitate a free and open communication and dialog on this issue, I present to you a list of the ATM machines around EUGENE's house.

    All you have to do is spread out, have the entire New York Media machine agree to wait by the ATMS near Eugene, and one of you will eventually have the opportunity to ask him some questions.

    Oh, but wait. Maybe you're wondering which ATM machine he likes to go to? Well, all you have to do is subpoena the CCTV tapes from the various institutions in Chelsea and they'll be glad to tell you which ATM machine Eugene "really likes to go to."

  • Here are the ATM machines around Eugene’s house.

  • Here are the Chinese restaurants around Eugene's current address.

  • And as a kind reminder, it is only 6 miles from PubSub to Eugene's current address. As a courtesy to the media here is a map showing how a non-drunk crow might fly after dropping a load of shit on PubSub's building and then flying north to Eugene's current address, and then returning to drop more shit on WYMAN's head.

    But let's pretend you don't have alot of time, and want to go to the most probable location where Eugene will be having an evening meal. I would encourage you to call the management at this Chinese restaurant and ask them whether they have seen Eugene lately. It's Lin's restaurant in Chelsea, fairly close to both Eugene's house and sort of convenient if you like to walk around Union Square. That is, if you have alot of gas you want to get out of your system, if you know what I mean.

    FYI: This is just for entertainment purposes. Do not approach or follow Eugene. Do not do anything that might alarm him.

    Remember, you are not encouraged to call, communicate, follow, or otherwise have any contact with Eugene. Remember, if you attempt to interact with him or engage in any kind of inquiry you may be subject to some sort of sanctions.

    Remember, this is not legal advice nor a solicitation for you to take any action which might alarm, annoy, or otherwise directly communicate with Eugene.

    He's a known blog spammer. There's no telling what he might do next.

    Is the media ready to capture him on video?

    Let's hope Eugene wakes up from . . . the Chelsea Zone.

    Then again, why not leave him there, so we can have some more entertainment.

    Beware bloggers who spam. Beware bloggers who get spammed.

    Eugene made a poor choice in choosing which blog to spam.

    Bad dog, Eugene! You've been a very bad dog!

    The real surprise

    Now, let's think about where we've been. PubSub was having some issues. Eugene spammed my blog.

    At this juncture, it is clear that Eugene provided public responses to the above comments without knowing that I had the original comments.

    Well guess what's happened? WYMAN and EUGENE have shared notes, and talked. So, now they have a new position.

    Did you think that I was going to stand by and let them talk without some additional commentary? Oh, you are surprised.

    Because, guess what! This blog has a second ghost feed. That's right. The above comments that you've read is only one section of the comments.

    This means that at this juncture WYMAN and EUGENE don't know what is on the second ghost feed. I'm going to show you what else is there. And as you read this version, I hope you can appreciate the nature of the comments that Eugene Makes and take carefully note of his use of profanity.

    Ask yourself:

  • A. Based on the initial responses WYMAN and EUGENE posted on their blogs, how does their final position stand?

  • B. Do you believe that these kind of comments are appropriate for an employee of PubSub to make about a public blog?

  • C. Given what you know about the issues with PubSub, Monitor110, and the potential financial benefits to be accrued should the platform be deployed and IPO stock possibly being issued [even if there are problems], are there issues of materiality that should be known to the various investors in the various hedge funds and investment banks?

  • D. If you are doing an outside audit with the SEC Enforcement Division or doing a SAS99 review, how would you review the following comments: Do they amount to abusive management behavior that hopes to dissuade reasonable inquiry into matters?

  • E. Is the pattern of conduct indicative of the types of responses various auditors, investment bankers, or members of the SEC enforcement staff have been faced with when discussing issues with various investment analysis?

  • F. With respect to materiality and rule 10b-5 of the Securities laws and SAS99, is it material information for the investing public to know that there are potential management issues that warrant outside oversight and understanding?

  • G. Are the requisite management systems in place to ensure that employees are property trained, supervised, and that responses to simple questions are based on prudent management fact finding; or are the responses disconnected with actual employee conduct?

    I leave it to the investigators to follow up.

    Let's take a look at the types of comments that were left on my blog that are part of this second-ghost-comment-feed. Again, note specifically the use of words that are profane, derogatory, and appear to serve no legitimate purpose other than to annoy and to dissuade public discussion of matters of public interests.

    Also, note that the comments are made publicly, without qualification, and that they were freely made. It appears as though the person making the comments appears to not believe that their connection with Pub Sub can be traced.

    Is that the kind of company you want to be associated with?

    Is this the kind of conduct you want to expose your capital to?

    If you have a questions or an issue how easy will it be to get answers?

    If there are issues that warrant investigation, are you going to be satisfied with the answers and have reasonable assurance that the responses are related to actual evidence, or merely associated with employee denials?

    Let's take a look at the details of 6 Comments.

    In this one, notice the familiar language problem. The type is choppy, it doesn't flow well.

    Also, notice the last line using the terminology on someone else's blog: "Jackass" as in, "You sound like a Jackass".

    Thank you! I like being called assertive, especially when there are issues related to investment banking, rule 10b-5 and allegations that management is blowing things off that otherwise deserve appropriate attention.

    Is it appropriate to delete someone's comment that calls you a "jackass"?

    Actually, someone that likes to let the SEC know about arrogant management likes to let others believe the comments are gone in order to see what you will do.

    Thanks for walking into this one, Eugene. You exceeded my wildest expectations.

    Mind you, remember as I was initially reading these comments, I had no idea who this person was, or whether they knew what they were talking about. They never identified themselves formally as being an employee of PubSub.

    Now we know.


    Exhibit 11


    Nonsense Master said...

    1. I don't think pubsub search embedded tags in the xml feed.

    2. If the blog hosting service does not provide feed autodiscovery link inside the page. PubSub will not spend time to find the feed. Then the blog is never matched. No matter how long will it take. This is to help the blog community to follow feed autodiscovery standard.

    3. You are really sounds like a jackass. BTW, do not delete my comment.

    Time Posted: 01:29


    Above, notice the grammatical error in line 3, common throughout Eugene's public postings as a peer-setter-up-guy: "You are really sound like a jackass" would be more effective in the delivery if it were rewritten to read,
    A. "You really sound like a jackass," or
    B. "You are really a jackass" or
    C. "You sound like a real jackass."
    D. "You are a jackass."
    Perhaps with some management guidance we might have some additional enlightenment as to what Eugene is attempting to say. It's all so confusing, open to speculation, and uncertain.

    Further, I'm not really clear how "the above response" necessarily addresses the issues raised in terms on "failing to provide consistent subscription feeds," but I explain that away as a "language problem" with someone who is more familiar with Chinese than English.

    Distraction

    One thing people like to do when they're under the gun is get people distracted. You'll notice in this comment Eugene suggests I go read something.

    Later, he complained that I never read it. Not really clear what that has to do with PubSub's inability to provide consistent feeds, but I'll put this in the category of "Failed effort to distract attention from PubSub's subscription problems.

    Nice try, Eugene. BTW: If you had a good aggregator like Newsgator you'd know whether or not someone had discussed an issue related to your area of interest. Based on your later responses, it appears that you do not have a good aggregator like Newsgator that tells you this information.

    I'll put that in the category of, "Not realizing the full potential of Newsgator to do amazing things." Your loss.


    Exhibit 12


    Nonsense Master said...

    By the way, did anyone in Google and PubSub claims they search all the information? Please go to http://dailynonsenses.blogspot.com to read Search with uncertainty and think about it.

    Time Posted: 01:34


    Next Phase

    At this point, it looks as though Eugene's real goal at this point is to start pointing out problems on this website in order to send the message, "Hay if you're going to point out problems with PubSub, I'm going to do the same with your website."

    Wow! To think that "public comments about a public RSS system like PubSub" would attract such special attention.

    And to think that I use this blog just to blog with. How many other people are afforded such special attention?

    Does Eugene give other lovely comments like this?

    It's almost as if fine Eugene is showing up to provide "such useful information" to distract attention from the apparent real problem: PubSub's problems with the subscription feeds.

    Gosh, you don't think that this was the area in PubSub that the QA area signed off and said, "Good to go" and a certain person named EUGENE had something to do with?

    I can only speculate.


    Exhibit 13


    Nonsense Master said...

    Blogspot has a problem is that when you publish a new article, Blogspot's changes.xml may drop your site. I met this problem before and my whole post was dropped before without any matching or indexing in PubSub and Technorati.

    Welcome to jackass world of blogging.

    Time Posted: 01:36


    The above comment doesn't really flow all that well. At first blush, I catch the gist of what you are saying, but that last line, "Welcome to jackass world of blogging" could be rewritten. I would encourage you to resubmit your comments for WYMAN's approval and suggest you rewrite the comment in one of the following ways:

    A. Welcome to blogging-world, jackass

    This approach tends to downplay the jackass emphasis-word, and creates the impression that the "blogging world" is one of a right of passage. As if one, to be truly liberated, must be compelled to "understand the true nature of blogging" -- that if one to make a comment about a platform, this subjects the public to spam blogging.

    Such a construction would appear to be consistent with the paradigm that one is forced to be subjected to arbitrary levels of statements that have nothing to do with the original subject of discussion: The performance of PubSub relative to management assertions.

    B. Welcome to the world of blogging, jackass

    This construction is more general. It doesn't imply that blogging is necessarily a universal construct of existence. Rather this approach suggests that blogging and "the real world" are two distinct realities.

    However, this construction is not consistent with the above conduct which would appear to suggest that anytime some dares comment about substantive management issues, then they are likely to be subjected to real retribution.

    IT remains a matter of evidence to discern whether the above construction is a signal for SAS99 audit scope increase. If, in fact, as this construction would appear to communicate, it suggests that the "rules of SAS99 that we thought world apply to management statements" are not applicable when it comes to the internet.

    However, PSRLA 1995 clearly proves this conclusion is absurd in that all public statements and conduct, however communicated, are subject to oversight. Thus, this construction fails.

    C. Jackass, welcome to world of blogging

    This construction appears to be stronger. Notice at the beginning of the statement, the "Jackass" tends to stand out. Some might suggest that that is not consistent with the original intent of the writer. For had EUGENE actually intended there to be a "Jackass" at the beginning of the comment then he would have put it there.

    Thus, this construction, although more forceful in delivery may not be consistent with the later and arguably foreseeable approach that is more cordial. Yet, it is curious that despite the intermediate effort to be cordial, the later spamming [Exhibits 1-10] show a reversal.

    At this juncture, it appears as though there are issues with narcissistic behavior. This is another way of saying that when someone knows that they've gone to far, they then show up with some nice comments. This is classic abusive behavior. It remains a matter for others to evaluate to what extent, if any, EUGENE engages in similar conduct.

    I sense this is a good sign, though. Because what EUGENE is actually doing is testing his boundaries. I sense that he has had some very challenging experiences, and for the most part surmounted them. But at this juncture, the task seems a little overwhelming. Understandably, he might get annoyed.

    This is not to suggest that EUGENE is suffering from a mental disease, as such as statement is DEFAMATORY. It may be true, but it is not appropriate to say that.

    However, the issue comes up: What is to be said of someone when faced with more difficult challenges; are they going to flip out under the weight of greater responsibility.

    At the other end of the spectrum, we could speculate that the real reason for the use of "Jackass" was that EUGENE had been delegated the task of "taking care" of this blogger [Mud's Tests], but was somewhat limited in his effectiveness.

    Hay, but if you can't get someone to be quiet, you can always spam them and call them a "jackass," right EUGENE?

    Well, now you know that doesn't work either. What are you going to do now?

    D. Jackass, welcome to the blogging world

    This one is actually nice sounding. It's kind of like being given a lovely gift. Imagine yourself entering an amusement ride, but it's in the middle of Nigerian village.

    There you are, your land rover has broken down, and out of the middle of nowhere someone who does not speak English very well, and has been taught that "Jackass" is a sign of respect, hails a mighty welcome, "Jackass, welcome to the blogging world!"

    I like that. It makes me feel inspired. As if we could run up another hill, full gear, and then leap off a tall building.

    E. Welcome to the jackass blogging world

    This construction would suggest that the "blogging world" is full of jackasses. I agree. And it would appear there are many of them working on Fulton Street.

    Overall, I like the sound of D, the most, but I think the actual "best way" of saying this is to say, "Hay, Jackass...welcome to blogging!"

    Distraction

    Keep in mind that what is going on [that I don't know at the time] is that apparently an employee has spoken to his boss about the blog comments in Mud's Tests about Pub Sub, and the goal at this point is to distract attention from PubSub and put attention on the Mud's Tests.

    Well, there's on small problem. The proposed "solutions" below have nothing to do with Mud's Tests. We can only wonder why Eugene wasn't good enough to blog about these comments and provide a special ping to "Technorati" in sending a lovely message to the outstanding CEO David Sifry so that he might provide a special visit to Eugene's blog.

    But did that happen? No, Eugene as you can see appears to want to shift attention from the PubSub and mandate a solution that an RSS-user [customer] "should be doing".

    In light of our understanding of what Eugene's real job is at PubSub [peering networks and setup], we can only wonder if this is how PubSub employees are trained to speak to peers?

    It appears they show quiet a bit of disdain for customers; but what is to be said when outside investigators show up?

    You know: Those guys from the SEC Enforcement division who are smart enough to carry guns under their belt because they might be approaching someone who is a little, how shall we say it, tense that their message traffic has been intercepted and we now know their IP numbers and e-mail accounts and times they were assigned at work?

    Seeing how this is Eugene, it didn't have to come to this: But you freely chose to spam the wrong blog. It was your choice!


    Exhibit 14


    Nonsense Master said...

    please fix the technorati search box in your blog. given a keyword and select "at this site", the result returns all blogs contain the keywords in whole blog universe Technorati indexed. Please check your form to make sure it only returns result from your blog.

    Please don't delete this comment.

    Time Posted: 01:51


    Time hack

    Yes, the next comment is really interesting. As if it really matters what the time is. What do you believe is the reason for putting this here, Eugene?


    Exhibit 15


    Nonsense Master said...

    It is funny to see the time stamp on your blog is 1:45 but I started to received your post from PubSub since 1:21, Did you notice the time stamp on my comment is inconsistent with your post?

    Time Posted: 01:55


    Jackass Comment deleted

    This comment below is related to the Technorati problem. Note however, that the solution had 100% to do with the outstanding David Sifry and his fine, polite, professional and responsive staff who clearly stand head and shoulders above their peers.

    So, Eugene if you want to thank anyone, thank David.


    Exhibit 16


    Nonsense Master said...

    Thank you for reading my comment, You fixed the Technorati search box.

    Time Posted: 08:18

    Post a Comment


    At this point Eugene then spammed the blog with the above 10 Exhibits. Wow!

    To be clear, Exhibits 11-16 were the initial hits; then Exhibits 1-10 were the shot-gun-spamming.

    Let's consider the Spam Summit. And review the problems personnel were discussing. Then contrast with what was going on on this site.

    Consider what's more absurd, someone:

  • A. Using in appropriate language;
  • B. Complaining about their inappropriate language being deleted;
  • C. Believing that inappropriate comments with fowl language should be retained;
  • D. Could spam a blog with 10 rapid fire comments and have no accountability;
  • E. Who is an employee of PubSub would use a private blog to spam another blog; forget to remove their identifying information linking their profanity, spamming, and absurd conduct to PubSub; and do this as a SpamSummit was either in the planning stages or was being publicly discussed; or
  • F. Who is an employee of PubSub would spam a blog, believe the target was intimidated to be silent, convince them to shut down the comments, believe that the comments were not retrievable, then deny the conduct occurred on the false assumption there was no record, and then look like a moron when the actual record of the conduct was waved before the world after the admissible denial was transmitted, recorded, and relied upon by third parties?

    I'm not accusing anyone of a crime; I am stating flat out -- I've identified the person who has spammed this blog.

    What we know

    The conduct occurred

    Denials have proven baseless

    Strategy of the blog spammer

    The following is rather curious:

  • Shifting the responsibility

    If you're going to spam a blog, then others need to know about that. It's not appropriate to change the subject from your conduct to blog management decisions. There is no basis nor legal foundation for you to succeed on the following claims:

    - absurdly require rude remarks to be retained;
    - demand that rude remarks be reposted in some specified order

    We see before us no statutory framework nor legal construction that shifts the blog management decisions from the blow owner to the blog spammers; nor has anyone pointed to a specific legal construction that any court would find credible as a reasonable basis to assert that a blog management function is up to the discretion of the public, or that responsibility shifts to the public.

    Rather, what is going on is some have absurdly asserted that the blog spamming initially didn't occur with a denial; then when given additional information, they then diverted with the absurd distraction that somehow the comments needed to be posted in a particular order.

    Sounds like someone has a hard time understanding what the definition of "stop spamming this blog" means: Quit changing the subject; quit shifting the attention from your conduct; and give the public a credible reason to believe that you're going to wake up to what you're doing.

    It appears, and we have no evidence to the contrary and we can only speculate to the following:

    A. You appear to be not happy for whatever reason;

    B. You appear to do things that you do not remember;

    C. You appear to post things that are rude and absurdly demand that others retain that content; and

    D. You appear to rather enjoy shifting attention from your conduct onto some illusory standard that you arbitrarily impose on others.



  • Excuses: Why it was "OK" to leave rude remarks;

    Blog owners retain sole discretion and power over everything here; there is no obligation to explain, justify, or get any consent from anyone on what content is retained, removed, or posted.

    Some are confusing blog spam and blog maintenance. If you do not like the content of this blog or how this blog is run or maintained, that is no excuse to spam this blog. If you're not happy with those decisions, that's your issue.

    If you have a personal problem or desire to call other people names because you disagree with the blog content, then that is your problem.

    If you desire to define an issue as being "over" or a "non-issue" then that doesn't signal an understanding of what is in this blog. You'll have to find someone to explain that to you.

    If you do not understand that issues remain open until I decide they are closed, then that is your problem. As you well know blog owners can narrowly define the topic; if you do not agree that the issue warrants attention, then you are free to find blogs more amenable to those types of philosophical pursuits.

    Software testing

    We are not here to be dissuaded from discussing an issue. That is a blog management decision. If you have other views on the performance of various personnel, software networks, or other data showing the actual conditions were otherwise, you are free to discuss that.

    However, we've seen nothing before us to suggest that there is any claim that the tests have or have not been fabricated; or that the results have been misleading or were other wise contrary to actual test results. The results and reports stand on their own for others to review, attempt to replicate, correct, or otherwise ignore.

    We are not in a position to assist others in understanding the difference between test results and blog spam. You'll have to talk to your own attorney on that or a paid professional.

  • Irrelevances: Why comments should or should not be retained.

    The issue is someone has spammed this blog. It is a distraction to debate whether the comments should/should not be retained; preserved; or reposted. There exists no legal construction that mandates that content be retained, removed, and preserved at anytime. There is no legal relationship nor is there a contract between anyone on the content retention or non-retention.

    I cannot help you if you are having a hard time differentiating between blog spam and blog management. Feel free to find somewhere else to discuss your concerns, comments, or views on how a blog should or should not be managed.

    This totally misses the point as to what, if anything, is being done to adjust their attitude/conduct about comments.

  • Red herrings: Whether it is appropriate to remove spam

    Feel free to discuss what legal construction affords a blog commenter any "right" to have their content preserved or not preserved when that content is removed.

    We see nothing before us in any statute, case law, nor any hypothetical legal foundation or construct that affords a cause of action to anyone for having a comment removed for whatever reason; nor is there a requirement to disclose that the comments may or may not be removed.

    Moreover, we see nothing before us that suggests there have been quantifiable economic losses or damages as a result of taking action in deleting content. On the contrary, there are others who may or may not have been induced to continue having faith in a product where there were legitimate questions, but as of this moment we see nothing before us in terms of specific claims or non-speculative damages.

    Thus, even assuming there was a contract [which there is not] that required a blogger to do X for the blog spammer-Y, we see nothing before us that would suggest there is a specific construct term or clause that would require, mandate, or cause any remedies to occur for a decision.

    Again, there is no contract that exists, thus there is no basis to assert one does or does not have the right to assert a claim that certain content be posted in a certain form or manner.

    If you're not happy with what is on this blog, then why do you continue to read it?

    Hypothetical assertions that there may be a "problem with content" or a theoretical flaw with "blog management" are irrelevant to whether you are or are not understanding blog spam; and moreover a distraction from the larger issue of whether or not there exist appropriate management responses to public feedback to comments to their products.

  • Absurdity: Whether it is appropriate to ban

    Public comments about products are what they are. You have other issues besides whether you are banned or not. Whether you deal with those or not is up to you. Whether one's "decision about a ban" is something you agree or disagree with is a separate matter from whether or not you have spammed; or whether you disagree with what you have done.

    At this juncture, it appears that you're still in denial: Attempting to shift responsibility for the "path going forward" onto others. That's not impressive, but is evidence that you're missing the point. That's something you'll have to resolve on your own.

    Whether you do or do not recognize the issue is "blog spam," we are in no position to assist you in comprehending that issue; nor can we offer any suitable guidance as to what would successfully clarify the subtle distinction between blog spam and blog management. I do understand that it may be confusing.

    The big mystery

  • How much energy might some expend to distract attention from the initial comments about software platform performance?

  • Is there any interest shown in saying, "We recognize that we did not take the initial feedback seriously?" I do not see that.

  • How many other people who provide comments and feedback have their comments ignored?

  • How much energy will be spent distracting attention from the original public comments about the software product?

  • What is the relevance to software upgrades to various blog comments posted? we see none.

  • What relevance does a test report have to a side discussion of whether there should or should not be a preference for having blogcomments retained when they fowl language? Again, there is no relevance.

  • What relevance does the initial test report have with the subsequent arbitrary and unfounded standards that blog management must or must not comply with various retention standards? We see no caselaw before us that would shift that requirement onto the public.

  • What is the relationship between a software test report and calling someone a jackass in their blog? Again, we see no relevance.

  • What is the relationship between a software test report and a decision to discuss/not discuss details related to issues that are a diversion from the original test report? Again, we see none.

  • What is the relationship between a software test report and a separate issue of whether comments on an unrelated issue are or are not retained? Again, there is no relevance.

  • What relevance or relationship is there between a software test report and the separate issue of hypothetical .xml/W3 standards imposing illusory requirement on the customer to retain/not retain comments? Again, there is no relevance.

    In short, it would appear that all your public statements in response to the original blog comments are not only unrelated to the original test reports; but when confronted with your conduct you appear to continue to shift the attention from your software and your conduct to the public.

    This would tend to tilt the scales to the side of, "They're not quite getting the point". Again, if you do not understand the linkage between the original content, your software product; and the disconnect between the blog spam and the subsequent irrelevant issues, then you appear to have far larger problems on your hands than the original spam.

    And to think that he was once really "polite."

    In my universe that's a real problem. Especially when you later find out that the person who was doing the spamming was an employee of PubSub whose management was continuing to say things are "just fine with their product" but the test results show otherwise.

    Damages

    World, what are the quantifiable financial damages, economic harm, or losses you can quantify in terms of your:

    A. being induced not to review the matters; or

    B. being induced not to increase audit scope; or

    C. being induced not to compare the conduct with various insurance, employment, and contract terms in various agreements, officer liability, or loan/banking covenants?

    Causation

    World, can you show that the conduct above is related to other conduct that should have been looked into, but was not;

    Is there a nexus of activity going on that warrants increased audit scope, but there has been an effort to create the illusion there is no link between management/employee action/inaction with the financial damages or losses you suffered;

    Can you show that the types of management or employee conduct that occurred above is related to other conduct that a reasonable person would conclude directly affected and caused you to suffer a quantifiable financial loss or some specific damage to your financial interests?

    Can you show that the above conduct is related to other patterns of conduct that precluded you from taking action; or induced you to not act when a reasonable person, when given full knowledge of the facts would have made an earlier decision to either not engage in financial transactions, or were induced to accelerate or adjust financial agreements you would have otherwise not engaged in had you know the scope of the management and employee conduct?

    Summation

    At this point, it is clear that certain employees have been linked with PubSub and various comments, incorporated by reference above in Exhibits 1-16.

    However, the larger issue remains to be understood by the outside media, analysis, auditors, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, plus the Inspector General at the Department of the Interior:

  • Are the above spam comments part of an orchestrated management effort to suppress unfavorable information about the management practices and credibility in re Monitor110 representations to Hedge Funds on payoffs associated with investments? This is a matter of fact for investigators to assess.

  • Have the markets been unfairly corrupted by dissuading public review of the matters in re rule 10b05 prior to the investment decision? This is a matter for the SEC enforcement to adjudicate.

  • In re materiality and rule 10b-5 and SAS99, do the above comments and conduct warrant an increase in audit scope? In my personal opinion, yes.

    Recommendation

    Increase audit scope of financial transactions related to RSS feeds. Pay particularly close attention to the Morgan Stanley statements on RSS feeds; compare them with the pubic statements by XML CEOs on the progress of their platforms; then independently compare the auditor results with your independent testing.

    At this juncture, it appears the gap between what the CEOs are asserting are their capabilities and what the products do is wide.

    Buyer beware!

    Disclaimer: The above comments should not be construed as recommendations to either buy or sell any security. Per the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the SEC rules on analysis, I am obliged to disclose any positions I may have in the underlings.

    As a full disclosure, I retain no positions in any hedge funds, investment banks involved in the Pub Sub Monitor 110 partnership; nor do I retain any financial positions in either Morgan Stanley nor Deutsche Bank.

    The above comments should not be construed to be a comment that is associated with the SEC Enforcement Division; nor is it a statement as to whether PubSub, Montior110, or Deutche Bank are currently under SEC Investigation.

    In general and by no means should this be construed to imply that PubSub or its officers or staff are involved in allegedly criminal activity, the above information is simply provided for your information.

    As with all ongoing criminal investigations the proper response is, "It would be inappropriate to comment." Is there a problem at PubSub? Ask the SEC.

    Going forward

    See? Wasn't that easy?

    All you had to do is apologize.

    As far as the other bullshit going on in your organization: What the hell are you doing?

    People show up, use your product, provide you feedback, and what do you do?

    You deny the problem.

    Here's a clue: Why don't you simply just listen. Just list. Quit your bullshit games with people.

    You act like nobody is going to do anything.

    Well, surprise. You spammed the wrong blog.

    And next time you do anything, guess who's going to be riding your ass?

    That's right: All the people who are reading this blog.

    If you have a problem with what someone is saying about your product maybe you should do what David Sifry does: Check it out.

    But what does PubSub do? They throw crap around. They spam blogs. They deny there's a problem.

    But lo and behold: We look into the information, do a few little checks, and find out there's a pile of crap there that you haven't cleaned up.

    Is that how you want to run your business: Leaving crap for others to explain away. You know how software development works. You've been doing this for years.

    You've been doing jabber. Your colleagues in CPAS and all around the globe know that you can do this stuff. So what are you so arrogant to think that if you can pull some bullshit like this, that the problem is going to go away?

    Here's a hint: The people that show up, make comments, and give you feedback on your products: Are trying to help you out.

    But what do you do? You throw it back in their face. What kind of crap is that?

    But here we are.

    What a lovely day.

    If you ever have a problem with what I'm saying, then get on you blog, blog about it, and don't you dare leave your shit on my blog.

    I can do with this blog what I want. But don't be so stupid to come on this blog, leave stupid comments, and then whine on your blog about some "Stalinist" state stuff.

    Huh? You're the one who's being the Stalinist-idiot. You're the one who wants to get access to stuff and then pretend the problems aren't there.

    You're the one who wants to get access through NNTP servers, but your performance is below your peers.

    Your own data says it.

    Thank you for being the catalyst for me to learn that my initial impression was correct: That your talk on your blog about the "great benefits" of RSS are just that: You like to talk about the benefits, but when someone shows up to talk about a problem, what do you do?

    You shit all over them.

    Jesus! And to think that for anyone to get you to simply look at your own product, they have to go through these Herculean effort, do this much research, and then throw it back in their face.

    Hello! What a waste of your time. You could have simply taken the information back in December when the problem was first identified, and recognized what the issue was.

    And it was free feedback! That is what is more amazing. And what do you do on your blog: You get up there and talk about the "great benefits of RSS" and "how great bogging is".

    Huh? Great for whom? As a selling point to customers? That's a crock of bullshit. It's actually just a "faster way" of finding out who is talking about you so you can put out the spin and keep it quiet.

    Nobody should have to go through what people have to go through in order to get you to listen.

    You "should" simply take the comments, and thank the public for their free feedback, and then outline a plan to fix the problem.

    Not spend 6 months spinning in your wheels.

    Next time

    If you have a problem with what I say, then you get your ass down to the US Attorney's office, bring 4 witnesses with you, and I expect you to sign under penalty of perjury every accusation you want to make about me, any blogger, or anyone else who dares to provide you information that you want to deny.

    When you post a copy of the video tape, plus a signed statement by the US Attorney, and the other FBI agents who are going to be witnesses to what you say, then I might believe what you're saying.

    And then, I'll show up with my evidence and show the agents which files to get the information so they can subpoena your ass, and haul you before the grand jury for perjury.

    That's where things are at. Next time you have a problem with what I'm saying: You have the obligation to go through some Herculean efforts to prove to the world that what I'm saying is false.

    I want video tapes; signed statements under penalty of perjury; and multiple witnesses from the US Attorney's office and FBI/DOJ that will witness what you are asserting.

    Then, at that juncture, I'll show them exactly what they need to look at to prove that you're lying.

    If you want to play this game of "we're not going to listen" or "this guy can be blown off" or "we'll just shut this guy down" with whatever bullshit game you want to play: Fine.

    Go ahead.

    Because now, the world knows: What you do, what you are capable of doing, and how much bullshit you throw before people before you'll even admit that possibly someone has noticed something that you missed.

    If I ever hear that you're treating one of your employees in a rude, disrespectful, condescending, or arrogant manner, you're going to have to explain that to me.

    We've had a very nice conversation. You and I have enjoyed our little talks. And you and I are going to become very familiar with each other: You are the expert; your job is to do our job; and it is my job to trust you.

    But the second that you dare give me bullshit, that trust is out the window, and I might as well find someone else to work with.

    But you don't seem to have gotten that through your head. You get paid alot of money; you do fine work . . .eventually, and your peers also recognize you for your contributions.

    Your job is to live up to the expectations that the public has been led to believe; if you can't do the job; or you're not sure; or you're given new information that isn't matching what you believe, back off! Don't continue to assert something that you're not 100% sure about.

    And in this case: Time and time again, the public has been told one thing, but independent checks show otherwise.

    I'm not expecting miracles. But I am expecting that if someone like you that works for a major corporation, or interactions with those on Wall Street, that you take your public standing seriously: People look to you as a solution.

    What I've seen on your website has been phenomenal. You do outstanding work.

    But your customer relations and how you interact with employees sucks. And that's what makes interacting with you detestable.

    If given the choice between your firm and another, I would tend to side with the opportunity to work with someone who is responsive, not arrogant, and simply does their job, and provides me with reliable information, even if the information is bad or not what you originally told me.

    But to find out this late in the game that what I've been let to believe doesn't match up to what is actually going on -- that is a major credibility issue. Especially when it comes to schedules, timelines, and the decision to choose between competing firms.

    I would rather have it later, reliable, and working at a little higher cost, than be given something that I'm told is working, and then I have to spend time going over the product, work out the bugs, and have the feedback thrown back at them.

    That's utter non-sense.

    Next time you put on your blog that you "value" something: At least have the courtesy to take that input, use it.

    I don't care if you ignore the comments. But don't throw up your hands and say, "Oh, that's not important" or "There is no problem."

    Obviously, the fact that someone has taken the time to come to you with some information is a good thing for your firm: But what do you do? You throw it back and turn a gift into a large pile of shit.

    Crap! This is my way of saying, "Thank you for helping me realize that when you're up against an asshole like you, you better be prepared to fight all the way."

    And I am. You're an asshole. And next time you have a problem with what I'm saying, I expect you to put that in writing, under penalty of perjury, and get some witnesses to attest to what you're saying.

    If you don't want to do that, then your word is worthless.

    Either way, I'm going to win and you're ultimately going to be shown to be a complete idiot for having dared to challenge someone who thinks highly enough of you that they would approach you with some information.

    At this juncture, I could care less what you do, what happens to your firm, or whether you dare to challenge me again.

    But I can assure you, next time you hear from me you need to listen. If you want to blow me off, think about all the other people who have given up trying to discuss issues and concerns with you.

    If you don't want to publicly assert to the veracity and truthfulness of your statements, then we are not going to have any more interaction.

    I have no confidence in your statements. And I also do not trust you to actually do what you need to do to get your job done. It requires too much work to both monitor your performance, while at the same time knowing more about your system than you do.

    That is not efficient use of scarce capital resources. And I would hope that the Wall Street Analysis carefully review the difficulty with which it is to get straight answers to very simple questions.

    Buyer beware if you're working with PubSub.

    Watch out. You have other options and I encourage you to carefully review your alternatives, and dig deep into what they are saying.

    The other issues

    Your job is to set this right with your peers. We've just had a spam summit a few months ago.

    You need to touch base with those you made promises to and show that you're taking this in-house situation seriously; and that you are applying these lessons and the conclusions out of the spam summit and applying them.

    Also, I expect the peers to get a courtesy call. You need to let them know that you've got an issue; what impact it may have; and what you're doing about it. I expect you to use this situation as something that is to your advantage. meaning: communicate!

    Tell people what you're doing about this. And use it to show that you're applying the lessons learned to not simply talk about solutions, but actually improve your service to reduce the error rates.

    I don't are how you do that. That's why you get paid.

    As far as who you talk to: You owe it to your own employees and coders around the world who work for your company to have a heart to hear with them.

    For example, your distance employees in India who are doing development work: Just, for the moment, put everything I've said aside, and simply communicate with them as if you were starting fresh with me.

    Just listen. They have ideas. They may not work. But they are testing you to see if they can trust you to at least consider new ideas.

    Your approach is too narrow minded: You have your own view of "what is possible," but when someone else shows up and discuses an issue, they're not asking for help; they're asking to see whether you are safe enough to share their insights about the other things they've been thinking about.

    That's why you have a company. So that people can come together, share ideas, and build new things.

    The feedback I get, is that it's stifling. You have this gray cloud that is hovering over you and it is dampening on the spirit.

    Maybe that's how you want to get people to produce. But is that how you want to be treated?

    Apparently so.

    So get off your ass, don't you ever do the bullshit that you've done here, and get with your board of directors and put together a really good story to explain why the public should have confidence in this Monitor110-beat when the platform that you're working from apparently has a number of holes in the QA system.

    I also expect you to touch base with the SEC and appropriately inform them of any issues that may be relevant per rule 10b-5; and that you voluntarily do so immediately. If there are no issues, then certify that in writing. And you’ll be glad to know there are teams waiting to prove otherwise.

    Do not hide. If you want to play games, or make up bullshit, or pretend things are just fine and you’re making up crap, I can assure that there are plenty of other people who are far more adept at gathering information in discovery and making this little chat seem like a love letter.

    They don’t screw around. They put people who fuck around like you do in jail. And they’re with the Department of Justice.

    They get rewarded on how many people they put in jail. Please give them an excuse.

    And they’re the good guys. They carry guns because of weirdoes who do strange stuff just to avoid being accountable for their misconduct.

    It is time for you to choose: Do you want to be on the side of the good guys; or do you want to be on the side of those we don’t trust?

    It is your choice.

    So quit your bullshit. And sit down with your General counsel and come up with a plan to get your shit together.

    Got that?

    Do I have answers to your problems? Of course not--that's why you get paid. Go figure it out, and don't be such a jerk to people.

    There's no telling how many great ideas you stifled simply because "your way" was the way that Wall Street trained you.

    Get with Sifry. Take some time off. Live around his aura. He's got his shit together, and so can you.

    Next time I see you on the internet, I'm gong to kick your ass.

    Get your car keys, and make a trip to the US Attorney's office, get those affidavits, videos, and signed statements.

    That's your problem. And the burden of proof you need to show me before I will believe you.

    You brought this on yourself.

    The list above

    You know what you need to do. Your job is to get out of your "whatever bullshit state your in" and solve your credibility problem.

    You know what I want.

    The world is watching.

    What will happen next?

    Note: This is how much hassle they put customers through. Imagine what they'll do when faced with some credible allegations.

    Is it worth the energy and financial costs required to double check?

    Do you want to spend this much time and energy checking everything?

    If there is a problem, who are you going to rely on?

    If you find a problem, will you believe their statements?

    Have they shown a pattern of denying things that actually are real?

    Are these the kinds of people you would want to sit down with, negotiate contracts with, or hire in exchange for you transferring money to them and you getting the above kind of non-sense?

    Are there more reliable, responsive, and accommodating counter parties whom you might interact with to achieve you financial and business objectives?

  • Summary

    Mud's Tests is pleased to report we have identified the spammer. His name is EUGENE Y. JEN and he is an EMPLOYEE of the PUBSUB Incorporated company.

    Some talk about blogging ethics. When the developers comply with IEEE requirements/ANSI standards and ACM standards, maybe I'll believe they're serious about following blogging ethics. I remain unconvinced they want to be held accountable to any standard; rather, developers want the public-cusomter to comply with some illusory "performance standards" not applicable to developers. Absurd!

    PubSub recently combined forces with GEOMETRIC GROUP to create Monitor110 a search platform for investment banking companies and hedge funds.




    Free Spam!


    PubSub also provides search support for RSS and Atom feeds on the internet. Part of PubSub's job is to set up peering relationships. Eugene's job was in part to establish these connections using a T1 account.

    Eugene Y. Jen spammed this blog less than 6 months ago. Keep in mind, at the very time that he was spamming this blog, Wyman and his "friends" at PubSub were feigning shock about the problem with spam.

    Is it not ironic that at the time there was a spam summit, the one person who was contributing to the spam problem worked for PubSub?

    Also, isn't it curious that the spam occurred just as WYMAN was denying there was a problem with PubSub?

    Later, we find out that the denials were worthless: PubSub in fact corrected the code [that they said there was no problem with] and it was shown that Wyman's PubSub platform was not actually working as advertised. There were problems.


    And these problems showed up during the December 2004 Tsunami in Asia. Alerts didn't go out. Those who had signed up with the PubSub system, if they had used some of the RSS options, were unable to get the information they wanted.

    The problem continued to occur during the subsequent Alaska Tsunami Tests.

    Eugene Y. Jen is a known blog spammer. Beware all! PubSub likes to hire people who, in my personal opinion, want others to be quiet about problems.

    Spamming is not a good thing to do.

    To be clear, we are not accusing EUGENE of a crime; only reporting that we found out who spammed this blog; and the curious timing this spamming had in relationship to the SpamSummit and various PubSub technical challenges indepdently reviewed and reported.

    Has PubSub recently been jilted?

  • Who was behind the action to spam the blog?

    What could PubSub theoretically do to make problems go away? Maybe they have some ideas.

  • PubSub Employee Spam Policy for Peering Requirements

    Does PubSub have a spam policy; also, is that spam policy not enforce, contrary to some peering requirements?

  • Public Relations

    When did CooperKatz no longer consider PubSub a client?

  • Good will

    Are others no longer working with PubSub?

  • Scope and terms of ongoing relationship

    Is there evidence that despite "no longer having a relationship with the advertising agency," various employees were still having some sort of interaction electronically with their old public relations firm or employees, despite apparent public statements to the contrary?

  • Reasonable public conclusions about the relationship ending

    If the formal relationship between the advertising agency and the primary client is not longer viable and has "ended," would it not be appropriate to expect that there be no contact between [a] PubSub and [b] the prior client, its officers, employees and the intellectual property, pamphlets, personnel associated with the advertising agency?

    Could the former advertising agency please describe the terms of the "we no longer have a relationship": Was it 100% "no contact," or was there a period of time that information would continue to flow back and forth between the client and the agency?

    When does the advertising agency expect the data transfer and clean-up issues following contract-termination will result in 100% "no contact" between the agency and client?

  • Mixed signals: More credibility problems?

    Why would some publicly assert "there is no longer a relationship or interest" but the employees were still going to the site that "they no longer had a relationship" with?

  • Post-Relationship Conduct is curious

    Does this mean that the relationship really isn't over; or is that the relationship was suddenly terminated without warning; or is it because they want to monitor what a previous partner is now saying?

    See the pattern? Someone gets banned, a relationship is severed, or there are overt and clear signals that things are no longer the same, but they keep coming back to monitor the situation.

    What's up with that?

    It's kind of like they don't like it when someone comes to a conclusion or reaches a decision: They come back to monitor what is going on. That sounds like they're emotionally attached to a situation, yet they've taken action that would send a signal that the relationship is "over."

    Indeed, the relationship is over, but only on their terms. Aha! To what do we enjoy having this rather arbitrary standard imposed? Oh, will we have more denials:

    "I didn't do it . . . " or "It wasn't me . . . " or "we never agreed to actually end the relationship in that way . . . "

    Indeed, their personal take clear actions that would send a clear signal that they no longer desire to have a civil interaction; but when their conduct is called on the carpet for all to see, they deny it thinking that nobody would dare believe those who question their veracity.

    How long has this been going on?

    How many people in a similar situation have been ridiculed, then efforts were made to apparently deny what was actually done?

    Does someone have such a "high standing actually made out of illusions" that they are insecure with themselves to simply "let go" of what is no longer an interaction?

    It is as if they want to impose "their discipline" on those who dare say what is self-evident, but when it comes to having some sort of accountability for that conduct, they turn to their chorus of enablers who do not realize they have been deceived.

    Yet, despite the initial conduct that would warrant an immediate end to the interaction, they then turn around and closely monitor the words and actions of those who dare speak.

    Quite a mixed signal, especially when they take bold action to send a clear signal they are not civilized and have no regard for a relationship; but when a decision is made to end the relationship and contact, they take it upon themselves to continue to monitor that which dared to challenge the inappropriate conduct.

    To that end, they have many denials and excuse. Plenty of stories. Do you plan to scream loudly; do you plan to threaten others; do you plan to track them closely as they go about their business?

    Why, if the public is led to believe that the interaction no longer is based on a formal contract does the interaction, monitoring, and surveillance continue?

  • If someone says this is "obviously" a "non-issue" are you going to believe them?

  • This is what [ he says ] . . . but what does he do?

    Note


    Feel free to disclose your "attorney-client" agreement authorizing you to act on anyone's behalf to issue statements as to whether the concerns outlined below have or do not have any merit.

    To be clear, no one has been authorized on behalf of anyone to assert "this is a non-issue" or "the issue is over". Such statements are not appropriate for they are not a party; nor have they been given any approval, authorization, or consent to act as either a mediator or adjudicator.

    Regardless their jurisdiction, it would be appropriate that anyone asserting that "this doesn't matter" would appropriately review the legal foundation upon which you are publicly asserting that this conduct deserves not scrutiny. If the issues do not matter to you, then perhaps you may wish to explain on your own blog why the conduct "doesn't matter". Indeed, if the conduct "doesn't matter" why so much energy spent on "that which doesn't matter"? Ah, no answer: The strange disconnect between what one spends their time on, versus what they publicly assert is "not an issue."

  • Why the inconsistency?

  • Why spending so much time on an issue that "doesn't matter" or is "over"?

  • Surely, if there were questions about the mental capabilities of those who dare notice reality, why would you continue to be worried about what is or is not here?

  • What will happen if the issue doesn't end and the discussion continues?

  • Or are you saying that it would be more appropriate that one keep silent about matters of public interest related to corporations engaging in commerce, transactions, public discourse, and public behavior?

  • What kind of reward, favor, benefit, profit, reward, financial award, or other valuable consideration [if any] are you provided in order to induce others to believe that someone's personal opinions based on findings of fact are without any merit?

    Perhaps, inter alia. . .

    * Perhaps you live in a land where your arrogant leaders talk about the freedoms you fight for or have enshrined in your Constitution; but you agree only with that right to expression and use of information technology when that conclusion is consistent with what you desire, not necessarily with reality;

    * Perhaps it has grown into fashion where you reside to only agree to the exercise of those freedoms when that opinion and conclusions are consistent with what you have been told or want other to believe;

    * Perhaps you only speak out when the conclusion is contrary to what you want others to believe;

    * Perhaps many of your kind continue to assert conclusions without regard to the subsequent evidence which show your initial conclusions were not only flawed be devoid of reality; and/or

    * Perhaps despite admissible evidence which may be the fruit of electronic discovery, you continue to assert your preliminary conclusions despite admissible evidence to the contrary.

    Indeed, you may wish to disclose the basis upon which you are asserting that the issues are not to be considered; and certify in writing that you are not in direct or indirect receipt of any financial or other valuable consideration for any statements suggesting that a valid concern about unusual PubSub employee conduct need not be discussed, reviewed, or publicly examined.

    Not to worry, for it is indeed curious how quickly raise the siren to shriek that something "doesn't matter," yet they are not a party. You are irrelevant the louder who dare to speak of an issue to which you are not involved. But you continue to speak as if the world cares. They do, for it would appear they have been fooled that you are someone to be taken seriously, when you have not apparently taken the time to review what you have asked for.

    Curious.

    For would we not expect the requisite level of evidence to change once again when the initial conditions were met? Indeed, such would appear to be the case. But why expect anything else from those who initially deny that which they believe no one can prove.

    A small error.

    You would be wise to review your appropriate jurisdiction's legal guidance on attempting to mediate or act on the behalf of another without your having been adequately certified by your jurisdiction's legal oversight.

    You will cease and desist to assert affirmatively that the concerns outlined below do or do not have any merit. Rather, you are to state that those conclusions are simply your personal opinion and are not intended to provide legal advise nor any comment as to the legal merits of the issues outlined.

    If you do not understand what this means, then it would be appropriate for you to seek the advice of legal counsel. Nor should the following information be construed to be legal advice to any party. Rather, it is a personal opinion which may or may not be widely accepted, endorsed, or believed.

    If you do not understand that this is a personal opinion and have not discussed the following issues with a certified, trained, and licensed legal professional in your jurisdiction, then stop reading.

    PubSub's problems

    What apparently prompted Eugene to spam this blog was a public test result that was contrary to PubSub objectives. In short, various different subscription methods created RSS feeds that produced different results. At worst, some subscriptions produced no content while other subscriptions worked.

    Some of the results were desired; and other subscription methods produced no results. This was a problem. However, Wyman asserted on Jeremy Zawodny's blog that there was no problem or delays.

    I countered with the test results showing otherwise. The issue wasn't simply a delay, but that content would never show up unless corrected, and Eugene then showed up spamming my blog.

    Curiously, since then we now know that the problems continued. The results in subsequent tests during the Alaska Tsunami tests showed that not all the feeds were correctly reporting. How this was actually corrected, you'll have to talk to WYMAN.

    The point of the matter is that there was a legitimate difference between what PubSub management was asserting as their capability and the independent test results.

    The reason for exploring the issues with PubSub is that PubSub forms a baseline with which to compare the Monitor110 performance. The concern is that if the initial platform cannot work properly [PubSub], then whatever inherent coding issues are in the PubSub backbone would reasonably be expected to continue in the Monitor110 development and success.

    Is this a matter that warrants public scrutiny? Sure, because many firms are planning to invest considerable funds in technology to monitor public discussion of their firms. However, the problem we run into is when we compare the apparent QA methodology of the Geometric Group and compare it with what was going on with PubSub, there are a number of questions:

  • Why was PubSub still having problems after the transition and combination with Geometric Group?

  • What is the nature of the QA testing behind the PubSub effort; and how are the results in the Monitor110 going in comparison?

  • If there are problems with the PubSub baseline platform, and the QA efforts did not catch things, is there a reasonable chance that the same management and development-approach when applied to Monitor110 would have the same problems?

  • How do the actual management plans in place to address the Monitor110 development efforts compare with the actual management plans and performance in the PubSub-analogy?

    These seem reasonable questions and issues to explore. It is a separate matter whether PubSub likes or dislikes the conclusions.

    However, my concern is that at the very time that these issues were getting raised, Eugene Y. Jen shows up and starts spamming my blog. Not very nice, very disruptive, and raises a number of other questions.

    For we know that management assertions from PubSub have not compared favorably with actual PubSub performance as independently checked. Did management not like the questions being raised at the critical juncture of ramping up for the Monitor 110 development and final sales plans?

    It remains a matter of evidence and law whether the US Government seeks to review the matters.

    What's up with that?

    Of immediate interest, however, to the day to day user is something called FeedMesh. This is the idea of having blogs and websites simply ping one service, and then all the services will communicate with each other.

    Small problem. Apparently people are suggesting that the services are working and that FeedMesh is working fine. My tests show otherwise.

    In short, the issue comes down to credibility. What I find disturbing in the PubSub, Monitor110, and FeedMesh issues is that there is a common element: Bob Wyman. He says one thing, but when I go check things out, there seems to be a number of exceptions. I don't the patience with someone who says one thing, but my reviews come to opposite conclusions.

    Am I calling Wyman unreliable? I'm still in the "I would check everything that man says"-mode. I'm this close to simply saying, "Anything he touches, run away from." I haven't done that. Why? Because eventually things work, somewhat.

    Which brings us back to Eugene and his blog spamming. It's been 6 months since he did this. I find it curious that someone would do that. I suspect without evidence that Wyman and he agreed to do what they had to do to continue a favorable public relations effort.

    So that got me to checking. And what I found with the peers and the PubSub data performance in Asia raised many questions in my mind. I noticed a number of errors and dropped feeds. Unusual error rates. Sure seems, after looking at the NTTP peering data, which the performance levels were far below those of the overseas competitors in Asia and Europe.

    So what's going on with PubSub, Monitor 110, and Geometric Group? I would encourage the analysis to dig into the performance data; and get a good feel for what did or didn't happen during the pre-Geometric area; and come to an understanding of what did or didn't happen during the PubSub QA testing/how they missed stuff; and then at the same time I'd encourage the analysis to look at the effectiveness of management in translating these lessons learned into a better Monitor 110 product.

    But here's the problem. Let's say the analysis, who are supposed to "analyze" these products actually aren't independent. This is to say that if you take a step back at the issue: Aren't the very customers of the Monitor110 product the same firms that are financing the development and deployment?

    If that's true, then I have no confidence that there's legitimate market forces competing to ensure that the financial side of the investment house [the ones hoping to make money] are going to press the analysts side for the straight scoop on how much things will cost, potential schedule delays, or overruns.

    Does this have anything to do with Deutsche Bank? I have no idea. I suspect that it does.

    Which brings us back to the blog spam. If you wanted to shut someone up, wouldn't you spam their blog hoping they would shut down their site or dissuade public discussion?

    I have no idea. Let's look at the blog spam with Eugene.

    Details

    Eugene you shouldn't really have left your name on your blog all this time.

    The IP number has been traced to an E-mail with your name on it.

    And the comments you left in the blog have brought discredit upon not only yourself, but PubSub and Geometric Group.

    Wyman

    So it's been all this time and we find out that the piece of employee that you have named EUGENE Jen is the one who has been spamming this blog.

    He runs his own private blog.

    Here is his e-mail Eugene Y. Jen.

    What I want

  • A public apology;

  • A clear statement of what you're going to do to get him to stop spamming the blog;

  • An independent review of all his private e-mails and blogs that he's posted;

  • A complete discussion with all other members of the public who have had their blogs spammed by anyone of the PubSub employees;

  • A discussion with the Board of Directors of Geometric Group to explain why EUGENE was given free reign to spam others blogs;

  • A discussion with your PUBSUB peers to discuss with them whether the conduct of EUGENE Y. Jen raises doubts about PUBSUB ability to conduct its affairs as a peer;

  • A discussion with the peers within the RSS community such as the fine people at Technorati and David Sifry to explain what PubSub is going to do about EUGENE Y. Jen's blog spamming;

  • A complete account of all access EUGENE has had to PUBSUB commercial and intellectual property so that the entire world knows what kind of access he's had to your files, including dates, times, and locations;

  • A credible public statement to the RSS community, David Sifry, and other professional XML developers who carefully planned and successfully ran the Spam Summit, that answers the following question, "Why is your employee spamming the public blogs on company time?"

  • Again, to the same RSS community who successfully hosted the Spam Summit a reasonable explanation that responds to the following question, "Why is your employee using PubSub resources to spam public blogs?"

  • An appropriate notification to the public that all employees at PubSub are familiar with reasonable and appropriate standards of employee conduct; that such conduct shall not include blog spamming; and a certification to be made to the RSS community and David Sifry [who is the best RSS CEO, in my opinion] that there has been a reasonable discussion of the matters and that PubSub has adequately reviewed the material and employee standards of conduct and have appropriately ADMONISHED Eugene Y. Jen for his inappropriate comments made in a blog.

  • A reasonable statement of apology within a reasonable amount of time. I leave this up to the RSS community and the XML community and the Search Engine Optimization community to decide how long something like this will go without a reasonable CEO statement that the matter has been reviewed and there will be no more problems. I think a reasonable amount of time would be 30 days, but I am not holding you to any deadline as I have seen over the past year that you have a glacial response in responding to reasonable requests for responses to software errors on your site. Your responses have simply been one of denying the problems existed. That is not impressive.

  • A thorough review of the peer operational requirements by a party outside PubSub and some sort of credible certification that PubSub remains in good standing with respect to the following requirements:
    - Personnel have adequate ENGLISH speaking skills;
    - determination whether this type of blog spam by a peer amounts to network abuse; a review whether the peer's conduct has occurred elsewhere on the net;
    - and an appropriate review by NDSoftware who QUOTE "reserves the right to modify, replace, or nullify this document at any time without written notice". RefENDQUOTE

    Issues

    I find it outrageous that BOB WYMAN has preached about the benefits of RSS, but when his own company produces a product that doesn't work properly, and the public provides evidence that the RSS feeds have a problem in them. . . what happened?

    Apparently, EUGENE decided to spam this blog.

    Well, guess what! We no know about EUGENE and it remains a matter for the courts to decide whether the spamming was done at the time that PubSub was hoping to get VC funding.

    Too bad the public found out about Eugene's spamming.

    How many VC personnel inside Geometric Group have bought IPO shares of PubSub on the hopes that the product could be sold to investment banking firms?

    Wyman, you have done a very nice job at hiring someone like Eugene.

    At least you owe it to people like David Sifry who stood up for you: they stood by you while your product was questioned.

    Now we know why there was such an outburst about blog spamming. Their own employees were doing the spamming.

    It remains to be understood whether this was an orchestrated effort to distract attention from the needed product reviews going on at the time that the VC funding were taking place.

    Oh, indeed, it remains a reasonable question whether the blog spamming from EUGENE Y. JEN at PUBSUB was related to an effort to dissuade public discussion about the apparently flaws in the PubSub coding at the very time that VC funding deals were being negotiated.

    Was this material information? I think so, and it remains a matter of law under Rule 10b-5 whether this blog spamming was an effort to dissuade a reasonable inquiry into product ability, defects, or the suitability of get well plans.

    EUGENE! Did you actually believe you were going to get away with this blog spam?

    Daily NonSenses

    1. Eugene Has a blog

    Eugene's blog.

    2. Technorati captured Eugene's admission that he made rude comments.

    The spamming occurred 172 days ago. And here's the fatal admission where Eugene admits that he was being rude: look at his blog.

    Eugene then confirms that he is the author of the comments here and conforms that the comments were deleted.

    Eugene has admitted that, inter alia:

    A. he made the comments;
    B. the freely chosen comments were not appropriate for a professional employee;
    C. there were multiple comments;
    D. the pattern was no isolated;
    D. the current comments were from his blog;
    E. his DailyNonsenses blog is his blog;
    F. he was in control of that blog;
    G. the comments he is making on the DailyNonsenses blog are specific to unique and particularized comments on another blog that he knowingly made comments on, and did so willfully.

    It makes no sense that he'd be talking about "someone else's comments".

  • Why would Eugene make a comment about his comments being deleted unless he made the comment?

  • Why would Eugene be upset that someone deleted his comment?

  • Why would Eugene publicly confirm that the comments "may have been rude" unless he made the comments [plural]?

  • Why would Eugene talk about the "importance" of maintaining blog conversations unless he was the one making the comments in the blog?

  • Conversely, if he had "made no comment" why is he publicly making a comment and offering an apology about "a comment, comments, or spam he supposedly never made"?

  • Why despite the above admission that he was rude [as he recorded in Technorati], would EUGENE then say otherwise and assert he never spammed the blog; and

  • Why would others dismiss this as a "non-issue" . . . despite Eugene publicly asserting and recorded on his own blog in January 2005 that the comments were not appropriate?

  • How many multiple-matching comments in a blog are required before someone is reasonably held accountable for blog spam?

    3. On Eugene's blog is listed public his email; this account is also cross referenced and mentioned in Chinese.

    Eugene has publicly provided his E-mail on CPAN.

    Here's the link between Daily Nonsenses and Chinese Language.

    You may wish to discuss Eugene's use and/or connection with this Chinese site.

    If you wish to go back through the entire archive of this site, you can find the intersections of Eugene's postings and his IP address. Look for the following four codes for the intersection between Eugene's PubSub Address, his name, and his DSN locator information that is only available by using a PubSub computer. Here are the search parameters for discovery going back 5 years on this site, to confirm:

    Parameter 1: &file=M.1078297670.A [file reference]
    Parameter 2: 的大作中提到 [Cross reference, Chinese]
    Parameter 3: Eugene Jen
    Parameter 4: 1078298644.A&num=6284 [Message number]

    Alternate search string to confirm IP match: file=M.1078298644.A&num=6284

    When you do this search through the archives, discovery, or other methods for cross referencing, this is the message you will get. This message confirms the IP is associated with JEN:

    ----------------------

    •¢ÐÅÈË: eugene@pubsub.com (Eugene Y. Jen),

    ÐÅÇø: cnAdmin

    ±ê Ìâ: News feed wanted -- New York, NY, USA

    •¢ÐÅÕ¾: http://groups.google.com (Wed Mar 3 15:06:03 2004)

    תÐÅÕ¾: SJTU!
    news.ccie.net.cn!
    news.zixia.net!
    newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!newsfeed.medi

    ³ö ´¦: 64.81.193.23

    ----------------------

    ALLEGATION: On or about March 3 2004, Eugene Y. Jen did post the above message which you can subpoena from the original site.

    Translation this is the article which confirms JEN is linked to the above ISP, where to get it, and how to confirm that he is in fact, the one that is associated with PubSub at that IP address.

    4. We also know where Eugene Lives and this favorably compares with the IP address of PubSub

    Here are all the Chinese restaurants around Eugene's home; you can check his credit card purchases on the dates around 165-175 days ago and see that he was still making purchases around the IP number at PubSub.

    Here are the video camera locations in Chelsea near where Eugene lives. Notice that these tapes can be reviewed by anyone who has access to Echelon, GCHQ, or NSA. These tapes are located in back-up locations outside the American's control.

    5. Eugene's G-Mail account is listed on Daily Nonsenses

    Here is his g-mail account http://tinyurl.com/9j7qf.

    6. Eugene is listed in NYC

    Here is his public address in NYC and his phone number.

    7. Eugene has a problem with English

    Eugene has a very distinct problem with English. He makes errors. Here is a sample linking his identity, to PubSub, and his original e-mail and IP. Here is an archived version of that posted information from 2004.

    Notice in the e-mail at Technorati, the title: "Deletion of Comments considers harmful". This is the same type of English-error listed on his public peering comments.

    Also, note the same type of error in this version. It's not SPAINish. It's Spanish.

    And he's also posted on other Spanish cites. Notice the grammatical error called, "interesting". This makes no sense.

    8. There are other public e-mails that have both Eugene's IP address, his pubsub e-mail account, and his interest in PubSub peering

    If you would like message traffic going back two yes, the following files can be subpoenaed. It is an account in Chinese where Eugene has posted peering information and can be linked to PubSub, Eugene's name, his sign-in times, and also the PubSub peering computers. That information is available here.

    9. Eugene made comments about blog spam

    What kind of credibility is that if he's going to spam other blogs?

    10. Here's the link between the PubSub IP DSN and Eugene

    The IP numbers match PubSub origin.

    As confirmation of this IP number, here is the cross index to the PubSub main hub here.

    Further, as confirmation of his link to NNTP here is the RFC code linking Eugene to the PubSub nntp peering efforts here.

    But if that doesn't satisfy you, we still have another way of linking Eugene to this particular IP: Look at this confirmation: 05:36:51 64.81.193.23 dsl081-193-023.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net from 2003

    Here is Eugene's personal code for the network: EYYJEN.

    11. Eugene has publicly listed his PubSub e-mail address and his EYYJEN code

    Here is a sample from 2004 archives. Notice the pubsub e-mail address under his name.

    Also note that the "news feed wanted" terminology matches that which is at the Chinese site, message referenced above, dated Wed Mar 3 15:06:03 2004.

    12. Eugene's PubSub time records also match

    You can also subpoena the access codes for PubSub the following days to see that PubSub employee EUGENE Y. JEN did have access to the facility and was using the computer assigned [64.81.193.23] to him on these days:

    2005 04 02
    2005 04 01
    2005 03 31
    2005 03 30
    2005 03 25

    Translation: He was assigned to this computer on these days; the IP numbers match the access times; and he was using the computer on those days. He was getting paid to use that IP number and that IP number can be shown to have been accessed by him, and only him, on those days.

    Conclusions

    Technorati data shows us that Eugene Y. Jen did confirm that he made comments on a blog.

    In his Daily Nonsenses blog he left his G-mail account; this G-Mail name matches the name for the public employee information which Eugene freely left in the public and also all the CPAN index files and pubsub account codes..

    Public information shows us that Eugene Y. Jen has left his IP number and linked it publicly with the PubSub company.

    Eugene Y. Jen is an employee or has been an employee of PubSub engaged in various efforts.

    Eugene's name, confirming IP, and DSN information that are publicly available all point to the same computer in PubSub.

    PubSub is also associated with all the IP numbers and DSN information which Eugene used when making public statements about PubSub, the peers, and other goods and services provided by PubSub.

    Eugene also has demonstrated an interesting habit of making recurring grammatical errors. These IP numbers and names also occur on the same public news peers Eugene has publicly posted using his open e-mail, his open information, and his information linking him to PubSub.

    Eugene has done nothing to hide his relationship with PubSub; nor has he done anything on his personal website that would ensure there was no way to link his website to him as an employee of PubSub.

    Peers

    Now that you know who Eugene is at PubSub. You're probably wondering what he did there.

    Eugene's job was to find peers for PubSub to download and connect with. Here are some sample printouts of the peering problems PubSub was having.

    Notice as you go through the data that PubSub's performance levels are not all that high. here are samples of the printouts.

    It appears as though Eugene's job was to improve market share.

    In other words, despite the problems PubSub was having without heir code, and Eugene still being busy with his peering connections he not only had time to spam blogs [how many others I have no idea], but he still had time to travel from PubSub, visit a Chinese restaurant in Chelsea and snuggle back down to his home. Here is the map from Eugene's house to PubSub. It looks as though he takes the Number 4 to the south end of Manhattan where he goes to the place he likes to spam blogs from: PubSub.

    Here is another sample of the usenet requests which Eugene sent out using the computer he likes to use to spam blogs.

    Here is another account you can subpoena to get additional T1-request information related to PubSub, Eugene Y. Jen, and his computer used to spam blogs. Here.

    Source Forge

    While all the above was going on, Eugene still had enough time to work on independent projects. He has an account through source forge and this is the project he had listed at one time. Note the names of the people on the project: They are also associated directly or indirectly to PubSub.

    Here are the names that you can cross reference if you want to get more information about the friends of someone who likes to spam blogs:

    Malcolm Pollack
    Duncan Werner
    Bill Lovett

    Werener and Wyman are linked through First Rain:

    Here is the address which links Wyman to Werner, and indirectly includes Eugene through the Source Forge:

    Bob Wyman firstRain, Inc. 134 West 29th Street New York, NY 10001
    US Phone: +1 212 616 8700 Fax: +1 212 290 2734
    EMail: bobwyman@firstrain.com URI: http://www.firstrain.com

    Duncan Werner firstRain, Inc. 134 West 29th Street New York, NY 10001
    US Phone: +1 212 616 8700 Fax: +1 212 290 2734
    EMail: dwerner@firstrain.com URI: http://www.firstrain.com

    Some of the people used to work with WYMAN before he created PubSub.

    Is Eugene that "not busy enough with duties at PubSub" that he has time to go over the Source Force accounts?

    Clearly, he's got his priorities in question. Does this mean there's a management problem at PubSub; or are their employees using computers without adequate supervision; or are we to believe that someone broke into PubSub's account without Eugene Knowing about it . . . ?

    Curious, all these questions and nobody has answers. But why expect anything else.

    Eugene likes to spam so that the tough questions don't get answers.

    Got any more blogs to spam as a diversion from other PubSub Problems?

    Who cares, now the world knows.

    Have a bad day, Eugene. You're an idiot.



    Disclaimer: Mud's Tests is not affiliated with PubSub or their employees like Eugene Y. Jen who spammed this blog.

    Denials admissible when contrary to interests

    Go back to the Technorati feed: Why would he admit just after the event "that he may have been rude"; but then later deny having spammed the blog?

    He denied because he didn't realize there were copies of his spam still available.

    Was the reason he wanted the material "reposted" so that he could get access to the content and delete it? I think so.

    The only reason he denied it because he didn't know the evidence was available. He thought that the information was gone.

    Adequacy of management oversight, supervision, and training

    In light of the actual conduct that is contrary to the denial, there appears to be some actual, tangible perceived consequence or cost to the employee and/or others should the allegations prove true.

  • What perceived consequences did EUGENE and/or others perceive were possible if the allegations were true?

  • Conversely, if the employee did not understand what they were doing was inappropriate, why did they later apologize?

  • Did the employee perceive that he did or didn't do something?

  • Did the employee engage in conduct that he does not remember?

  • How frequently does the employee engage in similar conduct that is treated as if it "doesn't matter" or "isn't worth remembering"?

  • Does this show a pattern of behavior that suggests there is a problem with the employee’s ability to understand what they are doing?

  • Is this a timing issue in terms of having some sort of ebbing and flowing as to their understanding of issues: That on some days they recognize conduct is not appropriate; while on other days the same conduct is perceived to be "not a problem"?

  • Is there some sort of issue, problem, or oversight issue which needs to be addressed?

  • Are there actual risks of real consequences if the employee engages in this apparent "selective memory problem" when representing various financial interests, corporate officers, or others in the business community?

  • Is it appropriate for them to have unsupervised access to technology?

    Basis of denial

    In other words the "review and investigation into Eugene's spamming" was not a review of any electronic data, nor any review of any electronic information. Rather, it appears management simply relied on the initial denial.

    Rather, they simply looked at the denial and took it at what the employee wanted others to believe, not what the employee actual did.

    This is the wrong question: "What is the employee saying, not what is actually going on."

    The correct question is: "What is the employee saying; what actually happened; and is there any evidence that warrants continued confidence in this employee’s verbal/oral statements?"

    Looks more like the PubSub way of doing things: Listen to what people say, and ignore what is actually going on with their equipment, capabilities, and actual performance.

    We seeing a pattern here?

    Out of court statements and denials are admissible as an exception under the hearsay rule. Moreover, when the information in the denial is proven to be false, the denial can be used to impeach the witness before a Grand Jury.

    We know that the denial was freely made, under the false assumption that information did not exist; all the while that the actual conduct being denied did occur.

    Allegation: The denial was communicated freely, knowingly, and willfully with the intent that it be relied upon, knowing full well that the asserted denial was false and the actual conduct did occur.

    We also know that the denial was communicated, in electronic format, is recorded and has been relied upon by others. It remains a matter of law to what extent the original denial [without knowledge of the existence of the evidence] was materially relied upon by third parties.

    Specifically, it remains a matter for the court to decide to what extent, if any, any outside individual relied on the initial denial as a basis to disregard the indicators of the employee conduct, or raise questions about the management at the PubSub Corporations.

  • Were the denials material; what management, hiring, retention, or other contract considerations or other business decisions were made and secured based on this denial?

  • Were the denials relied upon?

  • Have contracts been secured, retained in place, or have other financial indicators warranting an increase in audit scope per SAS99 been dismissed when they should have been increased?

  • Did management, when given the information, appropriately investigate the claims independently of the employees denial?

  • Has the employee been inappropriately supervised?

  • Has management failed to appropriately review the initial denial?

  • Have outside business partners, associates and other financial colleagues continued to rely on the verbal statements and, in doing so, have been dissuaded to review the matters or other wise cancel contracts that can be terminated for cause or on the basis of morals issue?

  • Does the initial review of the information by management show that they have inappropriately reviewed the matter?

  • Does the management approach to information and problem solving and indicators of problems with both products and employee conduct amount to negligence?

  • What damages and/or economic losses have others incurred as a result of relying on the initial denials that have been shown to be contrary to the actual conduct?

    Details on the Spam

    At this juncture, what do we have? Eugene somehow believes that all the evidence is gone. That there is no record. That all the comments are no longer traceable.

    There's one small problem.

    Guess who has a parallel comment feed? That's right. This site has a multi-channel comment line.

    This is another way of saying that there's a ghost comment thread that exists, but you cannot see.

    When you overlay the new comment feed on top of the old one, all the old comments disappear, but there's still archived and still available for the court to get access to.

    This has been Eugene's fatal error. He didn't realize that the original spam that he left still exists in electronic format.

    As you go over the detailed spam that Eugene left, consider the following:

  • A. Notice that the posts are duplicate to the original message

  • B. Notice that the posts are repetitive in both comment-content and structure

  • C. That the posting in the particular blogs is not sequential. This is to say that he's not simply going back incrementally, but he's jumping around forward and backward [in terms of dates in the blogs he's commenting to]; but he's making the same comment over and over again.

    Review of the evidence

    What you're going see below are the copy-paste versions of the spam-comments which Eugene left on this blog. They are the versions which show that Eugene made comments in here that were repetitive; unhelpful; were substantially unrelated to the original blog-content; showed no regard for a logical progression; nor did it substantially contribute to the discussion.

    As you read the comments below, review what Eugene said in his blog about keeping comments as part of a "community" record. Oh, isn't that sweet.

    Surely, why would anyone put a standard on someone to "maintain" a record of their blog spam for all the world to see; while at the same time laughably having others believe that the retention of those comments would contribute to anything substantive related to RSS, this blog content.

    Rather, we are far more persuaded that the comments are nothing more than an effort to harass, annoy, and otherwise dissuade discussion and public comments.

    Moreover, it appears as though the blog spamming was more designed to dissuade keeping the blog-comments open. Rather, it appears as though the actual intent of the blog spamming wasn't to engage in any dialog [As Eugene Might wish some to believe], but the actual motive appears to be the contrary: To spam the blog, generate enough annoyance to shut down the comments, and dissuade a substantive dialog related to the PubSub technical issues.

    Going forward

    You can be the judge. But I find it particularly interesting that at this juncture the comments are not one that recognize the details of the comments; nor have there been any admissions that the blog spamming was inappropriate; nor has there been any real discussion about the real objective of the blog spamming.

    Details

    Here are the details. In here you'll see the repetitive nature; the multiple dates; the duplicate content; and the recurring comments.

    Keep in mind, what he’s doing is posting all this on the same day. He’s going backwards in time. Making posts in blogspots that have nothing to do with the original content; and in dates that have nothing to do with the original post date.
    Watch as he goes backwards in time.

    Notice he is skipping blogs.

    I see no useful purpose to this.

    Moreover, notice that the message is the same: It continues to repeat the same content. This shows that not only is he simply pasting the content, but providing no reasonable comment that is linked to the particular post that he is posting to.
    Who’s being childish?

    Note also the time sequence. The times are not sequential. Meaning that on the day that he is spamming the blog, he’s not going in any sequential order. Rather, he’s just randomly picking dates, jumping around, and throwing down blog comments.
    What is the basis for picking the particular blog? Random: That is spam.
    What was the basis for selecting a particular time? None: That is spam.
    What was the basis to choose a particular blog over another? None: That is spam.


    Strike 1: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here are two comments on the blog dated the 16th. Notice the time is just prior:


    Exhibit 1


    Posted to Blog Dated: 16 Jan 2005

    1 COMMENTS:

    Nonsense Master said...

    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:14 PM

    POST A COMMENT


    Here are two postings in the same blog [blog dated 13 Jan 2005]. Notice they are a duplicate not only in time but in content.


    Strike 2: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:



    Exhibit 2


    Posted to Blog Dated: 13 Jan 2005

    2 COMMENTS:
    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:11 PM

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:11 PM

    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 3: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here’s another posting on the blog dated the 13th:
    13 JANUARY 2005


    Exhibit 3


    Posted to Blog Dated: 13 Jan 2005

    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]

    1 COMMENTS:

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.
    7:14 PM
    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 4: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here’s one he posted during the same shot-gun-sequence, but this one was posted to the blog dated the 11th:


    Exhibit 4


    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]

    1 COMMENTS:
    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 8:34 PM

    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 5: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    Here’s one on the blog associated with the 10th:


    Exhibit 5


    Posted to Blog Dated:

    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]
    1 COMMENTS:
    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:12 PM
    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 6: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:



    Exhibit 6


    Posted to Blog Dated: 9 Jan

    COMMENTS [NONE YET] REFERRERS [NONE YET] [?]
    1 COMMENTS:

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 8:35 PM

    POST A COMMENT



    Strike 7: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:


    This was posted to the blog dated 7 Jan


    Exhibit 8


    Posted to Blog Dated: 7 Jan

    Nonsense Master said...
    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 7:13 PM



    Strike 8: Impeaching a Witness


    Notice the contrast between what he says; what he does:



    Exhibit 9


    Posted to Blog Dated: 4 Jan 2005

    Nonsense Master said...

    Please recover my comments in http://mudtesting.blogspot.com/2005/01/technorati-can-search-your-tags-pubsub.html.
    It is not right to delete the comment from others. For integrity sake, please recover them.

    Comment Time: 8:36 PM


    Review

    Above, you can see that the comments were repetitive, duplicative, and show not linkage to the original blog content. Again, notice the contrast between what he says; what he does in the above comments.

    Also, keep in mind what Eugene is publicly saying. It would appear that his comments are related to his incorrect assumption that the blog comments have been deleted and no longer exist.

    But there you have it above: The multiple blog comments.

    As you review Eugene's public statements in the revelations about what was actually done, keep in mind:

  • Has Eugene shown real remorse?

  • Has Eugene made statements that accept full responsibility for what he actually did?

  • Did the public statements and or private discussions with peers include statements that were based on Eugene's apparent incorrect assumption that the actual original spamming content no longer existed and would never be seen again?

    I think 10-plus comments would credibly be called spam. Especially given the lack of relationship between the comments and the substance of the blog EUGENE was posting to.

    Based on the initial "responses" from Eugene, is this someone you want to have your products associated with?

    Does PubSub management encourage its employees to spam blogs to get comments shut down so that the public cannot easily compare notes in public about the issues related to PubSub?

    Is PubSub management getting a credible response from their Employee on what they actually did as evidenced by above; or are the employee responses to date more consistent with an employee who incorrectly believes that the original comment-spam no longer exists and will never be seen by PubSub management?

    Some might suggest that the public association that certain products may or may not have with Eugene is immaterial. If this is true, why would Firefox go out of its way to include Eugene's name on the list appearing in the NYT?

    It would appear that Eugene's public standing is important; and that his relationship and proximity to the peering community, PubSub and other RSS-related products warrants sufficient public regard that his name [when placed on the Firefox ad] would generate substantial good will.

    Surely, if he had no standing, there would be no reason to include his name. Or are we to believe that the "list of names" on the FireFox site is "just a name" and nothing more?

    Then if that's true, then having "one's name listed on the Firefox Ad" surely isn't something to boast about. So it remains unclear:

  • Is Eugene of sufficient importance to PubSub and Firefox that his name generate some sort of public importance and avenue to persuade others to choose Firefox over competing web browsers?

    We can only wonder.

    Translation

    I don't want a trivial "response." I want an apology for what you have done. That means in your blog comments don't simply say, "response" but put "I apologize" in the title of your blog.

    Also, I want you to get back with your friends, management, and peers and make any appropriate changes or modifications to any electronic information you have sent out.

    To the world and especially RSS-users, I encourage you to review the above information, the specific blog comments, and ask both WYMAN and EUGENE: Are you still able to stand by your original statements about what you did or didn't do?

    Furthermore, those who are reading the 'responses' from WYMAN or EUGENE on their blogs, are you satisfied that their statements are made consistent with the reality that these comments were made?

    Or are you left with the impression that their current statements are based on the assumption that the original blog spam will never be seen by anyone else?

    Has WYMAN's or EUGENE's public statements that they have made to date been consistent with what actually happened; or are there statements consistent with what they believe you will be able to find out happened?

    In other words, after you have reviewed the above 9 exhibits [10+ comments ] showing in detail what EUGENE did do, and after confirming messages from WYMAN and EUGENE that they have read the above content, do you notice any change in the comment, tone, or statements that they have made either orally or in writing?

    Is the fact that the actual spam-content is now available change or adjust your perception of whether their initial public statements were consistent with what happened?

    To the peers: Based on the initial statements EUGENE publicly made in "response" to what he did, are you satisfied his initial responses were consistent with what happened, or were they statements that were made on the assumption that you would never have the chance to compare his statements in the spam to what he now is saying happened?

    To the members of the RSS community, SpamSummit, search engine companies, and other interested personnel in the XML community: Are you satisfied with the responses you are getting; are you satisfied that the communication between EUGENE and WYMAN is based on what actually happened; or are you more persuaded that the initial conversations were based on the assumption that the original blog spam no longer existed?

    If you are to ask either WYMAN or EUGENE to make a public statement on the status of management actions, progress, oversight, employee discipline, are you satisfied that they will look into the matters independently; or will they simply ask the employee who has engaged in spamming "whether they did it," and rely solely on the employees statements without regard to actual evidence contained in the PubSub IT?

    In the future, based on what you have seen in re WYMAN and EUGENE's initial responses, are you satisfied that if there is a problem it will be thoroughly and timely looked into; will the fact finding be based on actual data that is recoverable; or will personnel rely on perceptions and memories; or will management oversight occur simply on the basis of concurring with what is denied, not what is actually going on?

    Fantasy Media Interviews: Do not attempt this, you could get into trouble

    Can you imagine what the 1930's Bob Hope-Bing Crosby musical-version or ABC afternoon special version of this adventure could be like?

    Let's fantasize what that might be like. You are a member of the PR community. Your goal is to monitor how effectively corporations are in responding to public relations problems.

    You're living in a world where totalitarianism and corporate bullying exists. Where management and government go out of their way to deny problems and pretend the cardboard you're eating is sugar.

    What do you do?

    Imagine the following types of presentation scrolling across your screen. . .

    [Flashback -- Wavy effect, this is a sign that you are entering the Chelsea Zone ]

    For those of you in the PR community that would like to interview Eugene, you're probably wondering how to find him. Well, even though he might have a certain "issue" with various communication methods at this juncture, there is an interesting problem that Eugene currently has.

    At some point, he's going to have to go to the bathroom. Why? Because he's eaten food in the last few hours. What does that mean?

    Well, after he relieves himself, he's going to have to think about what? That's right: More food.

    He's got three options: He can either go to a Chinese Restaurant; sprint to a grocery store, or run as fast as he can to the ATM machine and get some cash.

    Well, in the event that Eugene isn't able to give you a straight answer to some very simply questions, as a courtesy to the media and my desire to facilitate a free and open communication and dialog on this issue, I present to you a list of the ATM machines around EUGENE's house.

    All you have to do is spread out, have the entire New York Media machine agree to wait by the ATMS near Eugene, and one of you will eventually have the opportunity to ask him some questions.

    Oh, but wait. Maybe you're wondering which ATM machine he likes to go to? Well, all you have to do is subpoena the CCTV tapes from the various institutions in Chelsea and they'll be glad to tell you which ATM machine Eugene "really likes to go to."

  • Here are the ATM machines around Eugene’s house.

  • Here are the Chinese restaurants around Eugene's current address.

  • And as a kind reminder, it is only 6 miles from PubSub to Eugene's current address. As a courtesy to the media here is a map showing how a non-drunk crow might fly after dropping a load of shit on PubSub's building and then flying north to Eugene's current address, and then returning to drop more shit on WYMAN's head.

    But let's pretend you don't have alot of time, and want to go to the most probable location where Eugene will be having an evening meal. I would encourage you to call the management at this Chinese restaurant and ask them whether they have seen Eugene lately. It's Lin's restaurant in Chelsea, fairly close to both Eugene's house and sort of convenient if you like to walk around Union Square. That is, if you have alot of gas you want to get out of your system, if you know what I mean.

    FYI: This is just for entertainment purposes. Do not approach or follow Eugene. Do not do anything that might alarm him.

    Remember, you are not encouraged to call, communicate, follow, or otherwise have any contact with Eugene. Remember, if you attempt to interact with him or engage in any kind of inquiry you may be subject to some sort of sanctions.

    Remember, this is not legal advice nor a solicitation for you to take any action which might alarm, annoy, or otherwise directly communicate with Eugene.

    He's a known blog spammer. There's no telling what he might do next.

    Is the media ready to capture him on video?

    Let's hope Eugene wakes up from . . . the Chelsea Zone.

    Then again, why not leave him there, so we can have some more entertainment.

    Beware bloggers who spam. Beware bloggers who get spammed.

    Eugene made a poor choice in choosing which blog to spam.

    Bad dog, Eugene! You've been a very bad dog!

    The real surprise

    Now, let's think about where we've been. PubSub was having some issues. Eugene spammed my blog.

    At this juncture, it is clear that Eugene provided public responses to the above comments without knowing that I had the original comments.

    Well guess what's happened? WYMAN and EUGENE have shared notes, and talked. So, now they have a new position.

    Did you think that I was going to stand by and let them talk without some additional commentary? Oh, you are surprised.

    Because, guess what! This blog has a second ghost feed. That's right. The above comments that you've read is only one section of the comments.

    This means that at this juncture WYMAN and EUGENE don't know what is on the second ghost feed. I'm going to show you what else is there. And as you read this version, I hope you can appreciate the nature of the comments that Eugene Makes and take carefully note of his use of profanity.

    Ask yourself:

  • A. Based on the initial responses WYMAN and EUGENE posted on their blogs, how does their final position stand?

  • B. Do you believe that these kind of comments are appropriate for an employee of PubSub to make about a public blog?

  • C. Given what you know about the issues with PubSub, Monitor110, and the potential financial benefits to be accrued should the platform be deployed and IPO stock possibly being issued [even if there are problems], are there issues of materiality that should be known to the various investors in the various hedge funds and investment banks?

  • D. If you are doing an outside audit with the SEC Enforcement Division or doing a SAS99 review, how would you review the following comments: Do they amount to abusive management behavior that hopes to dissuade reasonable inquiry into matters?

  • E. Is the pattern of conduct indicative of the types of responses various auditors, investment bankers, or members of the SEC enforcement staff have been faced with when discussing issues with various investment analysis?

  • F. With respect to materiality and rule 10b-5 of the Securities laws and SAS99, is it material information for the investing public to know that there are potential management issues that warrant outside oversight and understanding?

  • G. Are the requisite management systems in place to ensure that employees are property trained, supervised, and that responses to simple questions are based on prudent management fact finding; or are the responses disconnected with actual employee conduct?

    I leave it to the investigators to follow up.

    Let's take a look at the types of comments that were left on my blog that are part of this second-ghost-comment-feed. Again, note specifically the use of words that are profane, derogatory, and appear to serve no legitimate purpose other than to annoy and to dissuade public discussion of matters of public interests.

    Also, note that the comments are made publicly, without qualification, and that they were freely made. It appears as though the person making the comments appears to not believe that their connection with Pub Sub can be traced.

    Is that the kind of company you want to be associated with?

    Is this the kind of conduct you want to expose your capital to?

    If you have a questions or an issue how easy will it be to get answers?

    If there are issues that warrant investigation, are you going to be satisfied with the answers and have reasonable assurance that the responses are related to actual evidence, or merely associated with employee denials?

    Let's take a look at the details of 6 Comments.

    In this one, notice the familiar language problem. The type is choppy, it doesn't flow well.

    Also, notice the last line using the terminology on someone else's blog: "Jackass" as in, "You sound like a Jackass".

    Thank you! I like being called assertive, especially when there are issues related to investment banking, rule 10b-5 and allegations that management is blowing things off that otherwise deserve appropriate attention.

    Is it appropriate to delete someone's comment that calls you a "jackass"?

    Actually, someone that likes to let the SEC know about arrogant management likes to let others believe the comments are gone in order to see what you will do.

    Thanks for walking into this one, Eugene. You exceeded my wildest expectations.

    Mind you, remember as I was initially reading these comments, I had no idea who this person was, or whether they knew what they were talking about. They never identified themselves formally as being an employee of PubSub.

    Now we know.


    Exhibit 11


    Nonsense Master said...

    1. I don't think pubsub search embedded tags in the xml feed.

    2. If the blog hosting service does not provide feed autodiscovery link inside the page. PubSub will not spend time to find the feed. Then the blog is never matched. No matter how long will it take. This is to help the blog community to follow feed autodiscovery standard.

    3. You are really sounds like a jackass. BTW, do not delete my comment.

    Time Posted: 01:29


    Above, notice the grammatical error in line 3, common throughout Eugene's public postings as a peer-setter-up-guy: "You are really sound like a jackass" would be more effective in the delivery if it were rewritten to read,
    A. "You really sound like a jackass," or
    B. "You are really a jackass" or
    C. "You sound like a real jackass."
    D. "You are a jackass."
    Perhaps with some management guidance we might have some additional enlightenment as to what Eugene is attempting to say. It's all so confusing, open to speculation, and uncertain.

    Further, I'm not really clear how "the above response" necessarily addresses the issues raised in terms on "failing to provide consistent subscription feeds," but I explain that away as a "language problem" with someone who is more familiar with Chinese than English.

    Distraction

    One thing people like to do when they're under the gun is get people distracted. You'll notice in this comment Eugene suggests I go read something.

    Later, he complained that I never read it. Not really clear what that has to do with PubSub's inability to provide consistent feeds, but I'll put this in the category of "Failed effort to distract attention from PubSub's subscription problems.

    Nice try, Eugene. BTW: If you had a good aggregator like Newsgator you'd know whether or not someone had discussed an issue related to your area of interest. Based on your later responses, it appears that you do not have a good aggregator like Newsgator that tells you this information.

    I'll put that in the category of, "Not realizing the full potential of Newsgator to do amazing things." Your loss.


    Exhibit 12


    Nonsense Master said...

    By the way, did anyone in Google and PubSub claims they search all the information? Please go to http://dailynonsenses.blogspot.com to read Search with uncertainty and think about it.

    Time Posted: 01:34


    Next Phase

    At this point, it looks as though Eugene's real goal at this point is to start pointing out problems on this website in order to send the message, "Hay if you're going to point out problems with PubSub, I'm going to do the same with your website."

    Wow! To think that "public comments about a public RSS system like PubSub" would attract such special attention.

    And to think that I use this blog just to blog with. How many other people are afforded such special attention?

    Does Eugene give other lovely comments like this?

    It's almost as if fine Eugene is showing up to provide "such useful information" to distract attention from the apparent real problem: PubSub's problems with the subscription feeds.

    Gosh, you don't think that this was the area in PubSub that the QA area signed off and said, "Good to go" and a certain person named EUGENE had something to do with?

    I can only speculate.


    Exhibit 13


    Nonsense Master said...

    Blogspot has a problem is that when you publish a new article, Blogspot's changes.xml may drop your site. I met this problem before and my whole post was dropped before without any matching or indexing in PubSub and Technorati.

    Welcome to jackass world of blogging.

    Time Posted: 01:36


    The above comment doesn't really flow all that well. At first blush, I catch the gist of what you are saying, but that last line, "Welcome to jackass world of blogging" could be rewritten. I would encourage you to resubmit your comments for WYMAN's approval and suggest you rewrite the comment in one of the following ways:

    A. Welcome to blogging-world, jackass

    This approach tends to downplay the jackass emphasis-word, and creates the impression that the "blogging world" is one of a right of passage. As if one, to be truly liberated, must be compelled to "understand the true nature of blogging" -- that if one to make a comment about a platform, this subjects the public to spam blogging.

    Such a construction would appear to be consistent with the paradigm that one is forced to be subjected to arbitrary levels of statements that have nothing to do with the original subject of discussion: The performance of PubSub relative to management assertions.

    B. Welcome to the world of blogging, jackass

    This construction is more general. It doesn't imply that blogging is necessarily a universal construct of existence. Rather this approach suggests that blogging and "the real world" are two distinct realities.

    However, this construction is not consistent with the above conduct which would appear to suggest that anytime some dares comment about substantive management issues, then they are likely to be subjected to real retribution.

    IT remains a matter of evidence to discern whether the above construction is a signal for SAS99 audit scope increase. If, in fact, as this construction would appear to communicate, it suggests that the "rules of SAS99 that we thought world apply to management statements" are not applicable when it comes to the internet.

    However, PSRLA 1995 clearly proves this conclusion is absurd in that all public statements and conduct, however communicated, are subject to oversight. Thus, this construction fails.

    C. Jackass, welcome to world of blogging

    This construction appears to be stronger. Notice at the beginning of the statement, the "Jackass" tends to stand out. Some might suggest that that is not consistent with the original intent of the writer. For had EUGENE actually intended there to be a "Jackass" at the beginning of the comment then he would have put it there.

    Thus, this construction, although more forceful in delivery may not be consistent with the later and arguably foreseeable approach that is more cordial. Yet, it is curious that despite the intermediate effort to be cordial, the later spamming [Exhibits 1-10] show a reversal.

    At this juncture, it appears as though there are issues with narcissistic behavior. This is another way of saying that when someone knows that they've gone to far, they then show up with some nice comments. This is classic abusive behavior. It remains a matter for others to evaluate to what extent, if any, EUGENE engages in similar conduct.

    I sense this is a good sign, though. Because what EUGENE is actually doing is testing his boundaries. I sense that he has had some very challenging experiences, and for the most part surmounted them. But at this juncture, the task seems a little overwhelming. Understandably, he might get annoyed.

    This is not to suggest that EUGENE is suffering from a mental disease, as such as statement is DEFAMATORY. It may be true, but it is not appropriate to say that.

    However, the issue comes up: What is to be said of someone when faced with more difficult challenges; are they going to flip out under the weight of greater responsibility.

    At the other end of the spectrum, we could speculate that the real reason for the use of "Jackass" was that EUGENE had been delegated the task of "taking care" of this blogger [Mud's Tests], but was somewhat limited in his effectiveness.

    Hay, but if you can't get someone to be quiet, you can always spam them and call them a "jackass," right EUGENE?

    Well, now you know that doesn't work either. What are you going to do now?

    D. Jackass, welcome to the blogging world

    This one is actually nice sounding. It's kind of like being given a lovely gift. Imagine yourself entering an amusement ride, but it's in the middle of Nigerian village.

    There you are, your land rover has broken down, and out of the middle of nowhere someone who does not speak English very well, and has been taught that "Jackass" is a sign of respect, hails a mighty welcome, "Jackass, welcome to the blogging world!"

    I like that. It makes me feel inspired. As if we could run up another hill, full gear, and then leap off a tall building.

    E. Welcome to the jackass blogging world

    This construction would suggest that the "blogging world" is full of jackasses. I agree. And it would appear there are many of them working on Fulton Street.

    Overall, I like the sound of D, the most, but I think the actual "best way" of saying this is to say, "Hay, Jackass...welcome to blogging!"

    Distraction

    Keep in mind that what is going on [that I don't know at the time] is that apparently an employee has spoken to his boss about the blog comments in Mud's Tests about Pub Sub, and the goal at this point is to distract attention from PubSub and put attention on the Mud's Tests.

    Well, there's on small problem. The proposed "solutions" below have nothing to do with Mud's Tests. We can only wonder why Eugene wasn't good enough to blog about these comments and provide a special ping to "Technorati" in sending a lovely message to the outstanding CEO David Sifry so that he might provide a special visit to Eugene's blog.

    But did that happen? No, Eugene as you can see appears to want to shift attention from the PubSub and mandate a solution that an RSS-user [customer] "should be doing".

    In light of our understanding of what Eugene's real job is at PubSub [peering networks and setup], we can only wonder if this is how PubSub employees are trained to speak to peers?

    It appears they show quiet a bit of disdain for customers; but what is to be said when outside investigators show up?

    You know: Those guys from the SEC Enforcement division who are smart enough to carry guns under their belt because they might be approaching someone who is a little, how shall we say it, tense that their message traffic has been intercepted and we now know their IP numbers and e-mail accounts and times they were assigned at work?

    Seeing how this is Eugene, it didn't have to come to this: But you freely chose to spam the wrong blog. It was your choice!


    Exhibit 14


    Nonsense Master said...

    please fix the technorati search box in your blog. given a keyword and select "at this site", the result returns all blogs contain the keywords in whole blog universe Technorati indexed. Please check your form to make sure it only returns result from your blog.

    Please don't delete this comment.

    Time Posted: 01:51


    Time hack

    Yes, the next comment is really interesting. As if it really matters what the time is. What do you believe is the reason for putting this here, Eugene?


    Exhibit 15


    Nonsense Master said...

    It is funny to see the time stamp on your blog is 1:45 but I started to received your post from PubSub since 1:21, Did you notice the time stamp on my comment is inconsistent with your post?

    Time Posted: 01:55


    Jackass Comment deleted

    This comment below is related to the Technorati problem. Note however, that the solution had 100% to do with the outstanding David Sifry and his fine, polite, professional and responsive staff who clearly stand head and shoulders above their peers.

    So, Eugene if you want to thank anyone, thank David.


    Exhibit 16


    Nonsense Master said...

    Thank you for reading my comment, You fixed the Technorati search box.

    Time Posted: 08:18

    Post a Comment


    At this point Eugene then spammed the blog with the above 10 Exhibits. Wow!

    To be clear, Exhibits 11-16 were the initial hits; then Exhibits 1-10 were the shot-gun-spamming.

    Let's consider the Spam Summit. And review the problems personnel were discussing. Then contrast with what was going on on this site.

    Consider what's more absurd, someone:

  • A. Using in appropriate language;
  • B. Complaining about their inappropriate language being deleted;
  • C. Believing that inappropriate comments with fowl language should be retained;
  • D. Could spam a blog with 10 rapid fire comments and have no accountability;
  • E. Who is an employee of PubSub would use a private blog to spam another blog; forget to remove their identifying information linking their profanity, spamming, and absurd conduct to PubSub; and do this as a SpamSummit was either in the planning stages or was being publicly discussed; or
  • F. Who is an employee of PubSub would spam a blog, believe the target was intimidated to be silent, convince them to shut down the comments, believe that the comments were not retrievable, then deny the conduct occurred on the false assumption there was no record, and then look like a moron when the actual record of the conduct was waved before the world after the admissible denial was transmitted, recorded, and relied upon by third parties?

    I'm not accusing anyone of a crime; I am stating flat out -- I've identified the person who has spammed this blog.

    What we know

    The conduct occurred

    Denials have proven baseless

    Strategy of the blog spammer

    The following is rather curious:

  • Shifting the responsibility

    If you're going to spam a blog, then others need to know about that. It's not appropriate to change the subject from your conduct to blog management decisions. There is no basis nor legal foundation for you to succeed on the following claims:

    - absurdly require rude remarks to be retained;
    - demand that rude remarks be reposted in some specified order

    We see before us no statutory framework nor legal construction that shifts the blog management decisions from the blow owner to the blog spammers; nor has anyone pointed to a specific legal construction that any court would find credible as a reasonable basis to assert that a blog management function is up to the discretion of the public, or that responsibility shifts to the public.

    Rather, what is going on is some have absurdly asserted that the blog spamming initially didn't occur with a denial; then when given additional information, they then diverted with the absurd distraction that somehow the comments needed to be posted in a particular order.

    Sounds like someone has a hard time understanding what the definition of "stop spamming this blog" means: Quit changing the subject; quit shifting the attention from your conduct; and give the public a credible reason to believe that you're going to wake up to what you're doing.

    It appears, and we have no evidence to the contrary and we can only speculate to the following:

    A. You appear to be not happy for whatever reason;

    B. You appear to do things that you do not remember;

    C. You appear to post things that are rude and absurdly demand that others retain that content; and

    D. You appear to rather enjoy shifting attention from your conduct onto some illusory standard that you arbitrarily impose on others.



  • Excuses: Why it was "OK" to leave rude remarks;

    Blog owners retain sole discretion and power over everything here; there is no obligation to explain, justify, or get any consent from anyone on what content is retained, removed, or posted.

    Some are confusing blog spam and blog maintenance. If you do not like the content of this blog or how this blog is run or maintained, that is no excuse to spam this blog. If you're not happy with those decisions, that's your issue.

    If you have a personal problem or desire to call other people names because you disagree with the blog content, then that is your problem.

    If you desire to define an issue as being "over" or a "non-issue" then that doesn't signal an understanding of what is in this blog. You'll have to find someone to explain that to you.

    If you do not understand that issues remain open until I decide they are closed, then that is your problem. As you well know blog owners can narrowly define the topic; if you do not agree that the issue warrants attention, then you are free to find blogs more amenable to those types of philosophical pursuits.

    Software testing

    We are not here to be dissuaded from discussing an issue. That is a blog management decision. If you have other views on the performance of various personnel, software networks, or other data showing the actual conditions were otherwise, you are free to discuss that.

    However, we've seen nothing before us to suggest that there is any claim that the tests have or have not been fabricated; or that the results have been misleading or were other wise contrary to actual test results. The results and reports stand on their own for others to review, attempt to replicate, correct, or otherwise ignore.

    We are not in a position to assist others in understanding the difference between test results and blog spam. You'll have to talk to your own attorney on that or a paid professional.

  • Irrelevances: Why comments should or should not be retained.

    The issue is someone has spammed this blog. It is a distraction to debate whether the comments should/should not be retained; preserved; or reposted. There exists no legal construction that mandates that content be retained, removed, and preserved at anytime. There is no legal relationship nor is there a contract between anyone on the content retention or non-retention.

    I cannot help you if you are having a hard time differentiating between blog spam and blog management. Feel free to find somewhere else to discuss your concerns, comments, or views on how a blog should or should not be managed.

    This totally misses the point as to what, if anything, is being done to adjust their attitude/conduct about comments.

  • Red herrings: Whether it is appropriate to remove spam

    Feel free to discuss what legal construction affords a blog commenter any "right" to have their content preserved or not preserved when that content is removed.

    We see nothing before us in any statute, case law, nor any hypothetical legal foundation or construct that affords a cause of action to anyone for having a comment removed for whatever reason; nor is there a requirement to disclose that the comments may or may not be removed.

    Moreover, we see nothing before us that suggests there have been quantifiable economic losses or damages as a result of taking action in deleting content. On the contrary, there are others who may or may not have been induced to continue having faith in a product where there were legitimate questions, but as of this moment we see nothing before us in terms of specific claims or non-speculative damages.

    Thus, even assuming there was a contract [which there is not] that required a blogger to do X for the blog spammer-Y, we see nothing before us that would suggest there is a specific construct term or clause that would require, mandate, or cause any remedies to occur for a decision.

    Again, there is no contract that exists, thus there is no basis to assert one does or does not have the right to assert a claim that certain content be posted in a certain form or manner.

    If you're not happy with what is on this blog, then why do you continue to read it?

    Hypothetical assertions that there may be a "problem with content" or a theoretical flaw with "blog management" are irrelevant to whether you are or are not understanding blog spam; and moreover a distraction from the larger issue of whether or not there exist appropriate management responses to public feedback to comments to their products.

  • Absurdity: Whether it is appropriate to ban

    Public comments about products are what they are. You have other issues besides whether you are banned or not. Whether you deal with those or not is up to you. Whether one's "decision about a ban" is something you agree or disagree with is a separate matter from whether or not you have spammed; or whether you disagree with what you have done.

    At this juncture, it appears that you're still in denial: Attempting to shift responsibility for the "path going forward" onto others. That's not impressive, but is evidence that you're missing the point. That's something you'll have to resolve on your own.

    Whether you do or do not recognize the issue is "blog spam," we are in no position to assist you in comprehending that issue; nor can we offer any suitable guidance as to what would successfully clarify the subtle distinction between blog spam and blog management. I do understand that it may be confusing.

    The big mystery

  • How much energy might some expend to distract attention from the initial comments about software platform performance?

  • Is there any interest shown in saying, "We recognize that we did not take the initial feedback seriously?" I do not see that.

  • How many other people who provide comments and feedback have their comments ignored?

  • How much energy will be spent distracting attention from the original public comments about the software product?

  • What is the relevance to software upgrades to various blog comments posted? we see none.

  • What relevance does a test report have to a side discussion of whether there should or should not be a preference for having blogcomments retained when they fowl language? Again, there is no relevance.

  • What relevance does the initial test report have with the subsequent arbitrary and unfounded standards that blog management must or must not comply with various retention standards? We see no caselaw before us that would shift that requirement onto the public.

  • What is the relationship between a software test report and calling someone a jackass in their blog? Again, we see no relevance.

  • What is the relationship between a software test report and a decision to discuss/not discuss details related to issues that are a diversion from the original test report? Again, we see none.

  • What is the relationship between a software test report and a separate issue of whether comments on an unrelated issue are or are not retained? Again, there is no relevance.

  • What relevance or relationship is there between a software test report and the separate issue of hypothetical .xml/W3 standards imposing illusory requirement on the customer to retain/not retain comments? Again, there is no relevance.

    In short, it would appear that all your public statements in response to the original blog comments are not only unrelated to the original test reports; but when confronted with your conduct you appear to continue to shift the attention from your software and your conduct to the public.

    This would tend to tilt the scales to the side of, "They're not quite getting the point". Again, if you do not understand the linkage between the original content, your software product; and the disconnect between the blog spam and the subsequent irrelevant issues, then you appear to have far larger problems on your hands than the original spam.

    And to think that he was once really "polite."

    In my universe that's a real problem. Especially when you later find out that the person who was doing the spamming was an employee of PubSub whose management was continuing to say things are "just fine with their product" but the test results show otherwise.

    Damages

    World, what are the quantifiable financial damages, economic harm, or losses you can quantify in terms of your:

    A. being induced not to review the matters; or

    B. being induced not to increase audit scope; or

    C. being induced not to compare the conduct with various insurance, employment, and contract terms in various agreements, officer liability, or loan/banking covenants?

    Causation

    World, can you show that the conduct above is related to other conduct that should have been looked into, but was not;

    Is there a nexus of activity going on that warrants increased audit scope, but there has been an effort to create the illusion there is no link between management/employee action/inaction with the financial damages or losses you suffered;

    Can you show that the types of management or employee conduct that occurred above is related to other conduct that a reasonable person would conclude directly affected and caused you to suffer a quantifiable financial loss or some specific damage to your financial interests?

    Can you show that the above conduct is related to other patterns of conduct that precluded you from taking action; or induced you to not act when a reasonable person, when given full knowledge of the facts would have made an earlier decision to either not engage in financial transactions, or were induced to accelerate or adjust financial agreements you would have otherwise not engaged in had you know the scope of the management and employee conduct?

    Summation

    At this point, it is clear that certain employees have been linked with PubSub and various comments, incorporated by reference above in Exhibits 1-16.

    However, the larger issue remains to be understood by the outside media, analysis, auditors, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, plus the Inspector General at the Department of the Interior:

  • Are the above spam comments part of an orchestrated management effort to suppress unfavorable information about the management practices and credibility in re Monitor110 representations to Hedge Funds on payoffs associated with investments? This is a matter of fact for investigators to assess.

  • Have the markets been unfairly corrupted by dissuading public review of the matters in re rule 10b05 prior to the investment decision? This is a matter for the SEC enforcement to adjudicate.

  • In re materiality and rule 10b-5 and SAS99, do the above comments and conduct warrant an increase in audit scope? In my personal opinion, yes.

    Recommendation

    Increase audit scope of financial transactions related to RSS feeds. Pay particularly close attention to the Morgan Stanley statements on RSS feeds; compare them with the pubic statements by XML CEOs on the progress of their platforms; then independently compare the auditor results with your independent testing.

    At this juncture, it appears the gap between what the CEOs are asserting are their capabilities and what the products do is wide.

    Buyer beware!

    Disclaimer: The above comments should not be construed as recommendations to either buy or sell any security. Per the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the SEC rules on analysis, I am obliged to disclose any positions I may have in the underlings.

    As a full disclosure, I retain no positions in any hedge funds, investment banks involved in the Pub Sub Monitor 110 partnership; nor do I retain any financial positions in either Morgan Stanley nor Deutsche Bank.

    The above comments should not be construed to be a comment that is associated with the SEC Enforcement Division; nor is it a statement as to whether PubSub, Montior110, or Deutche Bank are currently under SEC Investigation.

    In general and by no means should this be construed to imply that PubSub or its officers or staff are involved in allegedly criminal activity, the above information is simply provided for your information.

    As with all ongoing criminal investigations the proper response is, "It would be inappropriate to comment." Is there a problem at PubSub? Ask the SEC.

    Going forward

    See? Wasn't that easy?

    All you had to do is apologize.

    As far as the other bullshit going on in your organization: What the hell are you doing?

    People show up, use your product, provide you feedback, and what do you do?

    You deny the problem.

    Here's a clue: Why don't you simply just listen. Just list. Quit your bullshit games with people.

    You act like nobody is going to do anything.

    Well, surprise. You spammed the wrong blog.

    And next time you do anything, guess who's going to be riding your ass?

    That's right: All the people who are reading this blog.

    If you have a problem with what someone is saying about your product maybe you should do what David Sifry does: Check it out.

    But what does PubSub do? They throw crap around. They spam blogs. They deny there's a problem.

    But lo and behold: We look into the information, do a few little checks, and find out there's a pile of crap there that you haven't cleaned up.

    Is that how you want to run your business: Leaving crap for others to explain away. You know how software development works. You've been doing this for years.

    You've been doing jabber. Your colleagues in CPAS and all around the globe know that you can do this stuff. So what are you so arrogant to think that if you can pull some bullshit like this, that the problem is going to go away?

    Here's a hint: The people that show up, make comments, and give you feedback on your products: Are trying to help you out.

    But what do you do? You throw it back in their face. What kind of crap is that?

    But here we are.

    What a lovely day.

    If you ever have a problem with what I'm saying, then get on you blog, blog about it, and don't you dare leave your shit on my blog.

    I can do with this blog what I want. But don't be so stupid to come on this blog, leave stupid comments, and then whine on your blog about some "Stalinist" state stuff.

    Huh? You're the one who's being the Stalinist-idiot. You're the one who wants to get access to stuff and then pretend the problems aren't there.

    You're the one who wants to get access through NNTP servers, but your performance is below your peers.

    Your own data says it.

    Thank you for being the catalyst for me to learn that my initial impression was correct: That your talk on your blog about the "great benefits" of RSS are just that: You like to talk about the benefits, but when someone shows up to talk about a problem, what do you do?

    You shit all over them.

    Jesus! And to think that for anyone to get you to simply look at your own product, they have to go through these Herculean effort, do this much research, and then throw it back in their face.

    Hello! What a waste of your time. You could have simply taken the information back in December when the problem was first identified, and recognized what the issue was.

    And it was free feedback! That is what is more amazing. And what do you do on your blog: You get up there and talk about the "great benefits of RSS" and "how great bogging is".

    Huh? Great for whom? As a selling point to customers? That's a crock of bullshit. It's actually just a "faster way" of finding out who is talking about you so you can put out the spin and keep it quiet.

    Nobody should have to go through what people have to go through in order to get you to listen.

    You "should" simply take the comments, and thank the public for their free feedback, and then outline a plan to fix the problem.

    Not spend 6 months spinning in your wheels.

    Next time

    If you have a problem with what I say, then you get your ass down to the US Attorney's office, bring 4 witnesses with you, and I expect you to sign under penalty of perjury every accusation you want to make about me, any blogger, or anyone else who dares to provide you information that you want to deny.

    When you post a copy of the video tape, plus a signed statement by the US Attorney, and the other FBI agents who are going to be witnesses to what you say, then I might believe what you're saying.

    And then, I'll show up with my evidence and show the agents which files to get the information so they can subpoena your ass, and haul you before the grand jury for perjury.

    That's where things are at. Next time you have a problem with what I'm saying: You have the obligation to go through some Herculean efforts to prove to the world that what I'm saying is false.

    I want video tapes; signed statements under penalty of perjury; and multiple witnesses from the US Attorney's office and FBI/DOJ that will witness what you are asserting.

    Then, at that juncture, I'll show them exactly what they need to look at to prove that you're lying.

    If you want to play this game of "we're not going to listen" or "this guy can be blown off" or "we'll just shut this guy down" with whatever bullshit game you want to play: Fine.

    Go ahead.

    Because now, the world knows: What you do, what you are capable of doing, and how much bullshit you throw before people before you'll even admit that possibly someone has noticed something that you missed.

    If I ever hear that you're treating one of your employees in a rude, disrespectful, condescending, or arrogant manner, you're going to have to explain that to me.

    We've had a very nice conversation. You and I have enjoyed our little talks. And you and I are going to become very familiar with each other: You are the expert; your job is to do our job; and it is my job to trust you.

    But the second that you dare give me bullshit, that trust is out the window, and I might as well find someone else to work with.

    But you don't seem to have gotten that through your head. You get paid alot of money; you do fine work . . .eventually, and your peers also recognize you for your contributions.

    Your job is to live up to the expectations that the public has been led to believe; if you can't do the job; or you're not sure; or you're given new information that isn't matching what you believe, back off! Don't continue to assert something that you're not 100% sure about.

    And in this case: Time and time again, the public has been told one thing, but independent checks show otherwise.

    I'm not expecting miracles. But I am expecting that if someone like you that works for a major corporation, or interactions with those on Wall Street, that you take your public standing seriously: People look to you as a solution.

    What I've seen on your website has been phenomenal. You do outstanding work.

    But your customer relations and how you interact with employees sucks. And that's what makes interacting with you detestable.

    If given the choice between your firm and another, I would tend to side with the opportunity to work with someone who is responsive, not arrogant, and simply does their job, and provides me with reliable information, even if the information is bad or not what you originally told me.

    But to find out this late in the game that what I've been let to believe doesn't match up to what is actually going on -- that is a major credibility issue. Especially when it comes to schedules, timelines, and the decision to choose between competing firms.

    I would rather have it later, reliable, and working at a little higher cost, than be given something that I'm told is working, and then I have to spend time going over the product, work out the bugs, and have the feedback thrown back at them.

    That's utter non-sense.

    Next time you put on your blog that you "value" something: At least have the courtesy to take that input, use it.

    I don't care if you ignore the comments. But don't throw up your hands and say, "Oh, that's not important" or "There is no problem."

    Obviously, the fact that someone has taken the time to come to you with some information is a good thing for your firm: But what do you do? You throw it back and turn a gift into a large pile of shit.

    Crap! This is my way of saying, "Thank you for helping me realize that when you're up against an asshole like you, you better be prepared to fight all the way."

    And I am. You're an asshole. And next time you have a problem with what I'm saying, I expect you to put that in writing, under penalty of perjury, and get some witnesses to attest to what you're saying.

    If you don't want to do that, then your word is worthless.

    Either way, I'm going to win and you're ultimately going to be shown to be a complete idiot for having dared to challenge someone who thinks highly enough of you that they would approach you with some information.

    At this juncture, I could care less what you do, what happens to your firm, or whether you dare to challenge me again.

    But I can assure you, next time you hear from me you need to listen. If you want to blow me off, think about all the other people who have given up trying to discuss issues and concerns with you.

    If you don't want to publicly assert to the veracity and truthfulness of your statements, then we are not going to have any more interaction.

    I have no confidence in your statements. And I also do not trust you to actually do what you need to do to get your job done. It requires too much work to both monitor your performance, while at the same time knowing more about your system than you do.

    That is not efficient use of scarce capital resources. And I would hope that the Wall Street Analysis carefully review the difficulty with which it is to get straight answers to very simple questions.

    Buyer beware if you're working with PubSub.

    Watch out. You have other options and I encourage you to carefully review your alternatives, and dig deep into what they are saying.

    The other issues

    Your job is to set this right with your peers. We've just had a spam summit a few months ago.

    You need to touch base with those you made promises to and show that you're taking this in-house situation seriously; and that you are applying these lessons and the conclusions out of the spam summit and applying them.

    Also, I expect the peers to get a courtesy call. You need to let them know that you've got an issue; what impact it may have; and what you're doing about it. I expect you to use this situation as something that is to your advantage. meaning: communicate!

    Tell people what you're doing about this. And use it to show that you're applying the lessons learned to not simply talk about solutions, but actually improve your service to reduce the error rates.

    I don't are how you do that. That's why you get paid.

    As far as who you talk to: You owe it to your own employees and coders around the world who work for your company to have a heart to hear with them.

    For example, your distance employees in India who are doing development work: Just, for the moment, put everything I've said aside, and simply communicate with them as if you were starting fresh with me.

    Just listen. They have ideas. They may not work. But they are testing you to see if they can trust you to at least consider new ideas.

    Your approach is too narrow minded: You have your own view of "what is possible," but when someone else shows up and discuses an issue, they're not asking for help; they're asking to see whether you are safe enough to share their insights about the other things they've been thinking about.

    That's why you have a company. So that people can come together, share ideas, and build new things.

    The feedback I get, is that it's stifling. You have this gray cloud that is hovering over you and it is dampening on the spirit.

    Maybe that's how you want to get people to produce. But is that how you want to be treated?

    Apparently so.

    So get off your ass, don't you ever do the bullshit that you've done here, and get with your board of directors and put together a really good story to explain why the public should have confidence in this Monitor110-beat when the platform that you're working from apparently has a number of holes in the QA system.

    I also expect you to touch base with the SEC and appropriately inform them of any issues that may be relevant per rule 10b-5; and that you voluntarily do so immediately. If there are no issues, then certify that in writing. And you’ll be glad to know there are teams waiting to prove otherwise.

    Do not hide. If you want to play games, or make up bullshit, or pretend things are just fine and you’re making up crap, I can assure that there are plenty of other people who are far more adept at gathering information in discovery and making this little chat seem like a love letter.

    They don’t screw around. They put people who fuck around like you do in jail. And they’re with the Department of Justice.

    They get rewarded on how many people they put in jail. Please give them an excuse.

    And they’re the good guys. They carry guns because of weirdoes who do strange stuff just to avoid being accountable for their misconduct.

    It is time for you to choose: Do you want to be on the side of the good guys; or do you want to be on the side of those we don’t trust?

    It is your choice.

    So quit your bullshit. And sit down with your General counsel and come up with a plan to get your shit together.

    Got that?

    Do I have answers to your problems? Of course not--that's why you get paid. Go figure it out, and don't be such a jerk to people.

    There's no telling how many great ideas you stifled simply because "your way" was the way that Wall Street trained you.

    Get with Sifry. Take some time off. Live around his aura. He's got his shit together, and so can you.

    Next time I see you on the internet, I'm gong to kick your ass.

    Get your car keys, and make a trip to the US Attorney's office, get those affidavits, videos, and signed statements.

    That's your problem. And the burden of proof you need to show me before I will believe you.

    You brought this on yourself.

    The list above

    You know what you need to do. Your job is to get out of your "whatever bullshit state your in" and solve your credibility problem.

    You know what I want.

    The world is watching.

    What will happen next?

    Note: This is how much hassle they put customers through. Imagine what they'll do when faced with some credible allegations.

    Is it worth the energy and financial costs required to double check?

    Do you want to spend this much time and energy checking everything?

    If there is a problem, who are you going to rely on?

    If you find a problem, will you believe their statements?

    Have they shown a pattern of denying things that actually are real?

    Are these the kinds of people you would want to sit down with, negotiate contracts with, or hire in exchange for you transferring money to them and you getting the above kind of non-sense?

    Are there more reliable, responsive, and accommodating counter parties whom you might interact with to achieve you financial and business objectives?

  • " />