Saturday, July 16, 2005

More pictures, more proof

A recent troll post to the forum here in this BLOG prompted me to provide further visual proof for my claims about Bill Palmer:

Here's what's circled in red:

"LoadPod, the nation's leader in iPod loading services." - untrue - it's RipDigital

A sponsorship ad from MacMice - possibly contributing to collusion between Jack & Bill to defame and discredit me

"There's a depraved lunatic slandering me" Pot, Kettle, Black [cough cough]

"...because he wanted to work for my company, LoadPod" Company? Work? Employment?

Finally, since LoadPod became a sponsor of the headline aggregator MacBytes - all of my submissions for stories have been refused for publication and ALL that Bill has submitted have been accepted .... hmmmm .... think about it. Before this sponsorship and before the article on Bill - my headlines were accepted both times I submitted them.

I would also like to point out a "string pulling" at Macsurfer. Out of all the websites on the internet, I am most thankful to the team at Macsurfer. It has been the biggest help in promotion of this website. That said, it seems Bill forced Macsurfer to republish "Bill's article" for two days straight - so that it could be seen in response to TWO totally different articles I published.



Middle-agedman said...

It seems that the comments coming from the Bill Palmer camp seem to fit into one of the following categories:
1. Name Calling (like the first comment here)
2. Whining (why are you picking on Bill? sniff, sniff)
3. Defensive (without substance)
4. Offensive (simple, childish attacks)

Here's an idea: how about using facts and arguments instead? Did any of you graduate from elementary school? If you are going to defend Bill Palmer and what he does and says then defend him with something more than the above. I have yet to see anyone actually refute any of JW's statements or conclusions regarding Bill and his opinions, activities, and writings.

I support any Blogger that keeps his Blog clear of senseless comments such as those falling into the above categories. Those of you that have complained of "censorship" need to grow up and write something with substance instead.

JW clearly spends a fair amount of time researching his subjects before he writes an article. This is especially clear in his responses to those that make intelligent comments. This is another difference between this blog and Bill's blog. Bill has deleted all negative comments from his blog, JW has not. In fact, I have read several responses to negative posts where JW has admitted that their comments were correct or that they had a good point. You will see none of that in Bill's articles.

I have been reading this blog and website for more than two years and will continue to do so because the quality of reporting is so high and the articles are so intelligent. It is because of this site that I have been able to differentiate between "news articles" that are simply ads in disguise and actual reporting on something significant. The same is true of websites that are designed to be helpful and informational vs. websites that are designed to rake in money from advertisers. Bill's websites are clearly some of the latter. There is nothing particularly wrong with that until he claims to be something that he is not.

In conclusion, for those crybabies that seek to hide behind their unnecessary and childish comments as defined above, please either grow up or go elsewhere. If you're a friend of Bill's and happen to like him or his content, just say so without the other rubbish and your comment will probably remain.

This website is clearly not going anywhere but up in readership (look at the counters and the web statistics) and accuracy. Sometimes the truth hurts. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

The truth hurts? Please spare me the drama.

The last two paragraphs of the JackWhispers post are nothing but supposition. How about JackWhispers provides some proof of *their* claims that there is 'string pulling' at Macsurfer, rather than whining about the fact that two of their stories weren't accepted.

Perhaps the stories just weren't worth publishing.

Reading this site is an exercise in frustration. While they do a lot of good research they diminish the value of it by resorting to the same tactics that they deplore - conjecture, hyperbole and ad-hom attacks.

FYT said...

Actually, I gave proof on both the MacBytes part and the Macsurfer bit - but there was nothing to prove as - yes it was just supposition. So I don't see your point.

Lemme ask you a question: WOULD YOU POST or LINK TO a scathing article about your sponsor? While their sponsorship was prominent on your HOME PAGE would you link to ANY article on a site that blasts the sponsor for being a charlatan? What would that say about YOU as a company?

*I would drop the sponsor and mention why to my readers.*

This isn't speculation: Bill Palmer bought a sponsorship on MacBytes - solely to get more headlines published. Period.

And actually, I think the Apple Employee Discount program was headline worthy - Macsurfer thought so!

You're also picking THIS story to make this comment - how funny. Because this is merely a followup and another BLOG entry to a story that is 6 pages printed long. In THAT story I had a picture of a Popular Mechanics article and PROOF of his "reviews" not being national but local affiliates AND proof that his LoadPod services are exaggerated - it does NOT take 10 hours to do 50 CDs - more like 3.5 hours.

Where are your posts saying these claims are untrue?

And by the way - Darren Mahaffey & Phil Pearson (of Macsurfer) have NEVER in the 7 years I have been reading Macsurfer (as far as I am aware) published an article twice - unless it was changed or they put it in the wrong category.

I published two distinct stories; one here and one on the JW main site with new content. Bill's article was published twice with a 3 day window between each post.

Conspiracy theory - ok. But, interesting to note as it was just something I noticed.

Middle-agedman said...

There's a depraved lunatic commenting after me, and it's time for it to come to an end.

I'm only going to address this issue this once, after which I will have nothing else to say about the matter going forward:

About twelve hours ago, an individual named Anonymous commented after me because he wanted to try to appear intelligent.

If someone wanted to be "anonymous" and did so by wearing a name tag with someone else's name would they really be anonymous?

Who else would use the term "ad-hom" and post at 2:00am?

When JW posts in another forum, he uses his forum name of JackWhispers or Adzoox. I think Bill can do the same unless he isn't confident in the content of his posts.

Anonymous said...


Heh. Believe what you may, but I'm not Bill Palmer. I'm sure there are plenty of people who understand what an ad-hominem attack is. I'm certainly not the only one who uses the term. You understood what it meant!


Yes, I agree, it's strange what is happening with Macsurfer. Had you mentioned which news stories you had submitted (which were subsequently rejected in place of Bill's submissions) then I would have agreed that it was possibly more than a coincidence.

All I'm suggesting is that you rise above the baiting that you receive from Bill, Jack, etc. and try to report the story without any personal bias injected into it. (While I realize that the 'blog' format encourages a personal intonation, in this case I don't feel it's helpful.)

If you strip the conjecture from your posts, and just provide the facts, I'm certain that your readership will still reach the same conclusion. I know that I wouldn't feel like I'm watching a schoolyard fight.

FYT said...

We'll just have to agree to disagree there:

1) Bill's article was malicious in nature

- my article wished Bill well and returned a few insults, while at the same time apologizing for any childishness on my part

2) Bill's article had NO facts and only one sided arguments that were made up in a delusional rant

- my article pointed out clearly - Bill's claims of recognition and rank are simply fantasy

3) He specifically points out that I am going out of my way to slander him - yet he can't prove that I am

- I promote my articles in forums - it's called link building

- slander has to have malicious intent and has to be an individual opinion meant as an attack. I point out in my article that Bill MAY be trying to influence the means by which I advertise the articles on this site. Besides, I believe print or internet is libel.

4) It is unbelieveable how many posts I have had to delete from these forums.

- I have left any specific logical criticism, at iPodGarage, Bill deleted my 3 attempts to simply link to my response - all I did was post a link to my story with nothing else attached. He doesn't even have comments enabled on his site!

5) I have visual proof - yet trolls still point out I am attacking him without basis

6) What in the heck is my motivation to attack Bill Palmer? Answer; None. All he's ever had to do is post factual evidence to the contrary or ask me to post it.

I'm just tired of his rants clogging up news services, tired of his claims of #1 this and #1 that - that have no basis, and tired of his weird opinions about "The Mac market" As he gains respect - he's slowly influencing sales and unethically advertising about his competition.

It goes beyond just "ignoring him" - he is catching celebrity status (much as Jack has) - I'm trying to point out a danger before it's too late.

And I ask again, why does he advertise MacMice again?

Honestly, with the Macintouch, Your Mac Life, Apple X Net, Slashdot, Engadget, MacMinute, Maccentral all talking about MacMice and Jack Campbell - who would advertise his products. Who?

Trust me, this isn't an ongoing battle against Jack either and my just dragging Bill into it. Bill proved he's a not a professional with his article - I just pointed it out a few times here.

Anonymous said...

Just read the article on Bill Palmer. What a nut. His idiotic ranting on the Mac mini is all the proof a rational person would need to prove that Palmer is not firing on all cylinders. What's most amazing to me, however, is the thinly veiled criticism of the average computer and his ignorance of the stock at an "iPod store". From day one, people have pointed out that reasonably priced monitors, keyboards, and mice are available at Mac stores. In addition, those considering a Mac purchase seem far more likely to do their homework, and won't be caught unaware by a lack of keyboard.

Sadly, he, Jack, and others have a Svengali like ability to lead people by the nose.

Why do the headcases always threaten to talk to their lawyer?