the big baby strikes again

so it appears, (in my opinion) jason hatch continues to whine and make assumptions on my website. oh lucky me!

it seems to be, in my opinion, that jason is most upset with the lie (according to jason because at the time that i posted that post to my online journal, i thought it was totally true) that i said way back on like december 13th (i’m not linking to it, you can find it if you want). he’s upset because i said y-s.com was advertising on my domain and that’s not true (this is not my opinion at all, this is what jason hatch said).

i still think it stinks that the internet world lets people put whatever they want on anyone’s domain until the DNS shakes out. that really, totally and utterly sucks ass (in my opinion) and maybe some computerguy somewhere should check into fixing that before there are more silly lawsuits against hot-headed web-writers like me.

in my opinion, jason keeps claiming that i made all these legal threats to y-s.com and they lost all this time and productivity because of it. these legal threats came in the form of one e-mail and one semi-coherent (because my voice shakes and sounds like i am crying when i am angry) 2 or 3 (haven’t got the phone bill yet) minute phone call. yes, i made empty, lame legal threats. because i am an american melodramatic brat, such is life. i guess you can be sued for that these days.

which means the software company i work for could suddenly get very, very, very rich because at least one of our angry, hot-headed bratty (so much like me) customers threatens to sue us about every other day. but the software company i work for takes customer service uber seriously and apologizes for everything, even if it’s not their fault, and people love that. of course, it goes to show why angry customers that call or write our software company don’t stay angry for long. of course, you can’t please all customers but that’s just life.

i learned, after working in customer service for a year, how to deal with angry customer calls. sympathize with the customer, apologize profusely, even when it’s not your fault, then offer solution. even if you can’t offer a solution the customer is usually much, much happier when they get off the phone.

in my opinion jason might want to revisit his methods of dealing with angry customers and probably take a course in clear, concise business communications.

see, i was upset with y-s.com before this whole too many processes thing even started. in my opinion they totally botched one of my orders and then one of their sales people promised to call me to get the whole thing figured out and the guy never, ever did– not cool in my book. then like two weeks later, on december11th, i get an e-mail from y-s.com saying i am using too many cgi processes.

in the e-mail they offered to help me curb my processes, i could jump from my $7 (or $5 or $6 i don’t remember what it really cost) a month hosting package to $30 or i could go elsewhere.

i choose the third option ONLY because in the e-mail i got on Tuesday December 11th at 12:18 p.m. CST and which i read at 6:30ish CST said and i quote, “Due to the severity of this problem, we ask that you execute one of the above options by no later than 5pm EST on Tuesday.”

again, let me reiterate, this e-mail arrived in my inbox at 12:18 p.m. on TUESDAY. I read it and flipped out. i was hot, steamy tears, hand shakes, voice cracks angry. i was relieved to find iwilldare.com still working and immediately went in search of another host, hoping i could get that up and running before y-s.com shut me off. jason now claims that it is not his company’s fault that i made the wrong assumption about their vague deadline. clearly one is supposed to assume that due to the severity of the problem, we’re gonna give you a whole week to settle this.

i found another host, yadda, yadda, yadda and got angry because i incorrectly (according to jason) thought y-s.com was advertising on my domains, blah. . .

so then on friday, december 14th, jason (in my opinion) hijacks my website and argues with a slew of readers of iwilldare.com. he leaves something like 17 comments on the site (and they are still here for you to read if you want to do a little investigation). Until last night, i had made 4 posts and left 2 comments regarding the whole y-s.com mess.

in his posts jason wrote, “Jodi has been threatening us with lawsuits all day, and as you can see from her mannerisms on this web site, she wasn’t very pleasant. She has also accused us of deliberately hijacking her domain.”

apparently one e-mail and one phone call made at like 9:00 in the morning is all day.

yet, i am the big fat liar and need to apologize.

and jason also wrote, “We e-mailed Jodi and 53 others on the 4th (a week before she cancelled) …”

i got the e-mail on the 11th. yet, i am the big fat liar and need to apologize.

jason also wrote, “Jodi certainly knew enough about what she was doing to start making legal threats _before_ asking us for help.”

yet, they were oh so helpful when i had to send something like 7 or 12 e-mails to y-s.com about the set up of danpatchlanes.com and then their oh-so-helpful salesman said he’d call me to clear things up and never did.

jason wrote, “Jodi was warned on Wed, Dec 5th and cancelled on Thurs, Dec 13th. ”

i got the e-mail on the 11th and in a different post he said i got the e-mail on the 4th. yet, i am the big fat liar and need to apologize.

jason wrote, “I said what I said to Jodi because she was abusive to my staff and intimidated them.”

i had no idea one could be so abusive in a 3 minute phone call where one is trying their best not to cry. i never even swore in the conversation. i think i had to end the call with something lame like, “i’ll have to have someone else contact you” because i was crying.

jason also wrote, “Jodi has since privately explained her position to me in detail, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s settled. ”

but jason continues to e-mail me (and post comments on my site) and i’ve gotten an e-mail from his lawyer. yet, i am the big fat liar and need to apologize.

jason also wrote, “This is Jodi’s site. Even though I have been an unwelcome guest, I’ve never lost sight of that. She has full editorial control and despite that she has not censored anyone. That deserves a ton of respect because I cannot honestly say I would have put up with the same thing.”

yet it’s perfectly ok for jason hatch to censor me.

craziness i tell you, just pure craziness!

(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)

16 Comments

  1. Jason 22.Dec.01 at 1:50 pm

    Ok, Here goes.

    #1 We were not clear with you about the deadline in the notice we gave you. On Friday, Dec 14th, I was operating under the assumption that you were part of the original batch of users I warned on Dec 5th. It wasn’t until Tyson pointed it out to me that you received notice on Tuesday that I realized something was wrong. I was rather curious as to why you didn’t get more notice because even though we reserve the right to shut down CGI abusers immediately, we made an effort to give everyone a week of notice to be nice. I later learned that we did give you a week but we weren’t clear about that. You had a right to be upset by this, but I don’t feel you made a reasonable effort to clarify the situation especially since the last 2 lines of the e-mail read “Should you have any questions or concerns, simply respond to this message and I will be glad to help you[…]Thank you for your understanding. I hope we can continue to serve you.”

    #2 While I agree you had a right to assume that we were going to shut you down on Tuesday, the fact your site was still live on Thursday when you cancelled should have told you that the deadline did not in fact refer to the current day. Regardless, the letter about CGI resource usage in no way gave you reason to jump to conclusions about advertising on your domain, to call us “unethical bastards” in public or to make legal threats. These are two entirely different issues. I am not taking issue with your posts about our lack of notice; I am taking issue with your legal threats and your libelous remarks.

    #2a You have mentioned more than once that you had several customer service related issues with us with regarding problems setting up another domain and lack of response about that issue. Again, I see no place for it here, as it doesnt justify legal threats or your other actions. Had you had posted something that said, I think Your-Site.Com is starting to suck. I havent had problems in the past, but they have recently fouled things up and Ive had to repeatedly ask for help It would be a different issue. We do make mistakes and Ive dealt with them in public before, without seeing any need to involve an attorney.

    #3 Your legal threat to me was not “semi-coherent”. It was a professional hit. You said “I’ve discussed this with my attorney and on the premise of advertising on my domain alone, you are facing not only criminal but civil charges and a pretty big fine, as well as paying for the legitimate and fair use of my domain name for the profit of your company.” You followed that up by telling one of my guys and stating that you worked for a software company and their legal department advised you that you could sue us if we didn’t stop what we were doing. You’ve since said to me privately that you did not threaten YOUR company’s legal department, but you were referring to you had a friend who worked in the legal department of ANOTHER software company. If so, you should have just said, “I have a friend who’s a lawyer” instead of using “software company” to further your intimidation by implying that you had big guns behind you.

    #4 You talk up and down about “customer service”. You cannot threaten someone with a lawsuit and then hide behind customer service. When you threatened my staff and me, you committed an act of violence, in my opinion. Customer service had absolutely no place in my further communications with you. My responses to your threats were harsh and deservedly so. My promise to sue you was directed not just at you, but at your attorney as well. It was designed to communicate clearly to the lawyer you represented yourself as having that we were not going to play any games and that we were calling their bluff. In my opinion, you were not by any means defenseless or harmless, you were “armed” with a lawyer. I’ll explain this more below.

    #5 Unless I am misreading your post, you are now claiming that you didn’t accuse us privately and publicly of advertising on your domain. You are saying that I am saying that, not you. I’m confused. You wrote to me: “I’ve recently cancelled my webhosting with your-site.com and have examined my domains only to discover that they are now advertisements for your-site.com[…]I consider this defacement and domain hijacking.” You wrote here (and on backwash): “the assholes at your-site.com are unethical bastards[…]i hit up bittersweetheart and baby becker and what do i find? FUCKING YOUR-SITE.COM ADS!”. You reiterated your belief again when you just wrote “i still think it stinks that the internet world lets people put whatever they want on anyone’s domain until the DNS shakes out”. You just implied that we WANTED to put ads on your domain.

    #6 DNS caching is designed to reduce network traffic and load on nameservers. Domain records are cached because they are not meant to be modified regularly and they often go for months, if not years, without being modified. If you had put your new site up and waited until 2 days after your transfer went through before canceling with us, our web site would not have come up when you entered your domain. For a period of 24-48 hours, the worst that would happen would be someone would visit your old site and not the new one. We deal with this all the time with people transferring into our site. They often call and say “Ok, I’ve transferred my domain, why am I getting my old site?”. I understand that you felt rushed and didn’t think you had time to “properly” move your domain. DNS caching was an unfortunate side effect in your case. However, we did not deliberately put our site on your domain. When we took your site down immediately at your request, the web server was no longer configured to serve your site and when you went our server, because of DNS caching, and told our server “Hey, give me iwilldare.com”, our web server gave you our page as the default because it was no longer configured for iwilldare.com. You could argue that we should have given you a 404 error instead, but there are other practical reasons why our site comes up as the default. As I said above, normally this is not an issue when domains are properly moved.

    #7 You claimed privately to me and again on backwash.com that you gave me the opportunity to defend myself here, which I appreciate, but it does not come close to ameliorating things at all. Allowing me to defend myself is no substitute for handling things appropriately to begin with. Furthermore, I was at a disadvantage because my credibility was already diminished and the situation was already hostile before I engaged you or your audience on this site.

    #8 Threatening legal action to my staff as an intimidation tactic is an act of violence, in my opinion. This is something I take seriously, and whether or not you meant what you said or were “semi-coherent” is meaningless to me and it doesn’t excuse your actions at all. To the uneducated, a lawyer is an authoritative figure and is capable of causing harm with a stroke of a pen. Therefore, it is reasonable for someone to get scared or feel intimidated by the use or threat of a lawyer. This is something that cannot be ignored or minimized.

    #9 You have repeatedly mentioned that I have made more posts about this issue than you have as a way of pointing out that I am making a bigger deal of this than you are. Maybe so; however, each and every post I have made here is in response to another post, whether it be yours or another users. Even though I seem to be caught up in discussions with your users, my responses are all to something you initiated. Even though you cannot accept responsibility for the words of your users, you should acknowledge the fact that your posts initiated these discussions. You cannot expect to post something controversial and have everyone refrain from commenting. You cannot expect me to refrain from responding.

    #10 On Saturday, after communicating with you privately, I believed the matter was settled. However, you subsequently made no attempts to accept responsibility for this on your web site and you buried the mention of your apology to me in a post about an unrelated matter. Furthermore, after seeing that you avoided taking responsibility and after consulting with my staff and receiving new information on Monday, I chose to reopen the matter with you. I privately asked you to remove the falsehoods from your site and post an apology in public that addressed several key issues. I do not believe this is a form of censorship; rather, I believe it is taking responsibility for your words and actions.

    I believe that you caused injury to my reputation, which is a tort in legal terms. Whether or not you intended to or not doesn’t change the fact damage was done. Stating something untrue about someone without “due diligence and investigation of the facts” is a form of negligence, in my opinion. Furthermore, when it was pointed out to you that you were wrong about accusing us of advertising on your domain, you made no attempts to correct yourself or retract the false statements you made on this site, and that in itself is a deliberate continuation of the tort in my humble, non-legal opinion.

    This is not about me whining about you saying you dont like us in public. I can handle that. This is about you giving people the impression that we acted unethically without backing up your words. Lets be clear about this.

    The situation has gone beyond the point where I consider it acceptable and proper to let it slide. This is a matter I feel we should work out privately, yet you insist on bringing this to the web. I trust you will note, that in absence of any remarks on this site, I remained silent for most of this week. Yet invariably it is going to be me who will take the heat for the fiasco reemerging on your web site.

    As I said before, I think you should accept responsibility for your actions and words so we can all get on with our lives.

    Jason

  2. Carrie 22.Dec.01 at 6:16 pm

    Jason, in semi-related business, my site was switched to the cgi-outlaw server and I am STILL trying to get confirmation as to whether or not I am one of 54 cgi abusers. I never received an email as to whether or not I am for certain, and I have sent several emails asking, as well as several emails asking what I can do to reduce my cgi usage. At this point, I have no idea if I am still paying 7 a month or if I’ve been upped to 30 because I’ve been switched to another server. Also, the switch to the cgi outlaw server caused me a good 48 hours of tiresome panic, as the cgi outlaw server would not allow me to CHMOD files if I was logged into http://ftp.leeks-and-roses.net. I figured out on my own that if I log in to http://ftp.europa.your-site.com things work as normal. Now, I’m not complaining about your company, I’ve had good luck with Your-Site; but, your email customer service could use a little help. Either my emails to Your-Site are not going through (which I doubt) or someone there isn’t answering the exact questions that I am asking.

    (By the way, I read Jodi’s site regularly and I tend to think that you really are overreacting a bit. Letting this whole misunderstanding die would serve your company better than perpetuating it.)

  3. Calli 22.Dec.01 at 6:29 pm

    I worked in customer service for years. My job? To eat shit, basically. Customers always call to complain when they are angry or emotional. They make baseless threats and accusations. Why? They are angry and emotional.

    They threatened to tell all their friends not to do business with our company. I’ve seen negative opionions from disgruntled customers on the -company- discussion boards and other public arenas.

    Has my former employer attempted to sue these people to shut them up or prove them wrong? No. And believe me, they have the available resources to do so.

    As a fairly casual reader of Jodi’s site, I’ve observed this excange with some interest. It was obvious to me that Jodi was upset when she complained about your-site. Honestly, I didn’t think too much about it. What has really gotten my attention is the degree in which Jason has blown this all out of proportion.

    I see complaints about the time and energy it took for your-site to handle the threats from Jodi, yet Jason continues to expend even more time and energy pursuing an issue that is better left to just die away.

    Jason says that Jodi has damaged his reputation. From my perspective, Jason has done far more to damage his reputation than Jodi has. I would not have based my dscision to sign up with your-site on Jodi’s complaints. No company is free of complaints. However, I have been completely turned off of your-site by Jason. I find this entire episode ridiculous.

  4. spoony 22.Dec.01 at 8:45 pm

    crybaby.

  5. Jason 22.Dec.01 at 9:12 pm

    Carrie,

    If you are on cgi-outlaw, then you’re a resource intensive site. I’m sorry you haven’t been notified; I’m not sure why you were overlooked.

    We will not be billing anyone without their consent. E-mail me with your username and I’ll see to it that someone works with you.

    Please understand that we’ve had higher priorities than the 54 users who were moved as opposed to being shut down. Nonetheless, you should have been told.

  6. greg 22.Dec.01 at 9:27 pm

    uh oh, jason said tort and stopped using slander incorrectly…. someone bought a legal dictionary. 🙂

  7. Jason 22.Dec.01 at 9:29 pm

    Calli,

    Handling legal threats and libel is not part of customer service. I’ve labored to make that clear, this is not a customer service issue.

    Customer service does involve taking crap to an extent, and you may be shocked to learn we have a unique policy about it: we don’t tolerate abuse from our customers.

    There is a huge difference between the following complaints:

    “I’m upset because you did X and Y and I’m considering hosting elsewhere”

    and

    “You guys are scam artists! I’m going to tell the Internet police on you!”

    The latter is asked to leave. The former gets a personal apology from me and is offered free hosting. I’ve even gone as far as sending flowers.

    When a customer is abusive to my staff, I ask them to leave. This is for the good of my staff and for the good of the rest of our customers. I believe I explained that in greater detail earlier on.

    When a customer threatens to tell their friends about us in a bad way, I ask them to leave and that’s the extent of it. I don’t see the need for legal action unless I actually catch them telling a lie publicly and I don’t make legal threats that I don’t intend on backing up.

    Of all the problems we’ve had, no matter how many people they’ve affected, we’ve never, in our 4-year history, had a customer pull a number like Jodi has. There was one incident where our software malfunctioned started showing our web site in place of over 100 customers’ sites. Did they complain? Definately! Did they threaten us? No. Did they accuse us of misappropriating their domain for advertising purposes? No, not privately or publically.

    I’ve dealt with customers who have posted complaints about us on newsgroups on numerous occasions. If we’re wrong, I’ll admit it and apologize. If the customer is way out of line and is complaining because they didn’t follow a simple procedure, I’ll point it out. So far no one has gone nearly as far as Jodi.

    If you think I’ve hurt my reputation by defending myself here and asking Jodi to do the right thing, then that’s your opinion. In my opinion, there is little that can be said here to make me regret standing up for my company.

    I’ve already come this far. Regardless of whether or not I regret certain things, I’m going to carry this through.

    Happy Holidays.

  8. greg 22.Dec.01 at 9:30 pm

    oh and my advice to you jason…hire a fucking PR person, because you might be really smart when it comes to hosting, you have no idea how to deal with people, which has been your downfall all along on this site.

  9. greg 22.Dec.01 at 9:52 pm

    see jason, you say you just ask those customers to leave, but jodi has already left. so you should too. any apology anyone sees from jodi now will be obviously fake, so why are you even bothering? i’m being honest when i say i don’t really think you are a scumbag or anything, and it’s great you have such passion for your company. so just go. stop harrassing jodi, because that’s threatenable by legal action too, and if you sued her, she wouldn’t have anything to lose by countersuing.

    furthermore, i think your legal case, while you and your lawyer may agree has some merit, could really be decided either way. that’s a big bet to take suing a girl from minnesota. how do you think lawyers make money? BY SUING PEOPLE. He/she loses nothing by trying to sue jodi, because they get paid either way. you may have a passion for this now, but a year from now, you will not sleep any better knowing you have taken jodi’s house or whatever other assets she owns. you’ll feel like the biggest dirtball on earth. just go. go back to your-site.com and help your other customers. no one is preventing you from doing that anymore, and trust me, we would all rather be talking about how cute jodies nephew and neice are than this.

  10. Jason 22.Dec.01 at 9:53 pm

    I’ve made my case. Unless Jodi posts a rebuttal to something I’ve written or decides to prolong things by making another front page post about us, I’m pretty much done posting here.

    -Jason

  11. greg 22.Dec.01 at 10:07 pm

    thank god.

  12. taalltom 22.Dec.01 at 11:23 pm

    Ya could let Jesse Ventura that your friends with people that know his ex-buddy, Sandy Barr, and it

    would nice if we all made sure nobody got screwed over…:))

  13. taallltom 22.Dec.01 at 11:33 pm

    I like to died laughing at Jason’s contention that threatening to “call the internet police” should be taken seriously.

    I think cyperpunks ought to find this amusing too, further they could devote some of their

    quests for entertainment to Jason.

    That might serve to improve Jasosn’s education considerably.

  14. Confused 22.Dec.01 at 11:49 pm

    After following this thread for sometime, I can see both points of the argument (I was hoping this would just die). However, This could simply be straightened out by Jodi publically apologizing for the remarks and by Jason seeing this and going away.

    Jodi “I’m sorry I made the comments about your-site.com. I realize what I said about them was not true. My assumption for this was based on an how an event that I did not understand worked.”

    Jason ::poof::

    I see it as that simple. Jodi and Jason keep clouding the main issue with many other sub issues and other garbage.

    My lawyer can beat up your lawyer….oh yea? Who cares?!?!

    Jodi, you made a mistake calling someone something that was not deserved, now you should take responsibility for your actions.

    If you simply called him/them “an asshole” that is fine and dandy as that’s your opinion. When you slander (or whatever the legal term is) a business without proof of thier fault, that’s when you get into trouble.

    Jason has dragged this on too long and keeps popping back in when we think it is over and adding more crap to worry about. Sounds like a soap opera. When is Jason’s good twin brother who was in a coma for 8 years and happened to be sleeping with Jodi’s long lost sister going to show up?

    Just kiss and make up, apologize and go away so we can get on with our e-lives.

  15. jodi 23.Dec.01 at 12:31 pm

    why is it that nobody has the courage to sign their names to posts when they slam me?

  16. Joe Peacock 23.Dec.01 at 10:03 pm

    Jason Hatch is a piece of shit.

    That isn’t my opinion, that is fact.

    Sue me, big boy.