Dietsmokes gave away our email addresses

[gobluejd]

Well, previous posts on the forum have stated that this business is being run by Parker's brother. Ockham's Razor led be to believe that the likely culprit was Parker. I suppose it could be someone else.

Let's see... it's his brother, and the bottom of the email says "COPYRIGHT 2009. BelowZeroLiquids.com/DietSmokes.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED."

Enough evidence for you? And I'd quit being a moderator before I'd quit speaking my mind. Especially when I'm right.

I also notice the email originates from dietsmokes.com, so it is parker that sent it out, it looks like an "addition" to his current site.

[Elendil]

Well, previous posts on the forum have stated that this business is being run by Parker's brother. Ockham's Razor led be to believe that the likely culprit was Parker. I suppose it could be someone else.

Let's see... it's his brother, and the bottom of the email says "COPYRIGHT 2009. BelowZeroLiquids.com/DietSmokes.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED."

Enough evidence for you? And I'd quit being a moderator before I'd quit speaking my mind. Especially when I'm right.

No, it is not enough proof for me.

Perhaps Parker has an ownership interest in the business, which means he is using the resources he already has to run his business.

My point being is that inflammatory threads tossing around accusations without proof are deleted all the time. Why should this be any different?

[gobluejd]

No, it is not enough proof for me.

Perhaps Parker has an ownership interest in the business, which means he is using the resources he already has to run his business.

My point being is that inflammatory threads tossing around accusations without proof are deleted all the time. Why should this be any different?

Well when you click on the store add, it takes you to his bros site, click contact and:

Austen@belowzeroliquids.com

[Elendil]

Well when you click on the store add, it takes you to his bros site, click contact and:

Austen@belowzeroliquids.com

Exactly my point. We don't "know" anything was sold. If he has an ownership interst in the business then he is using info already in his possession.

At the very least this should be moved to the Dietsmokes forum where it can be addressed. This isn't the place for it.

[Walrus]

No, it is not enough proof for me.

Perhaps Parker has an ownership interest in the business, which means he is using the resources he already has to run his business.

My point being is that inflammatory threads tossing around accusations without proof are deleted all the time. Why should this be any different?

Because first of all, there is evidence. It's not unsubstantiated. If the fact that the name 'dietsmokes' is at the bottom of the message isn't enough for you, I guess that's too bad... but it's enough to convince a jury.

Second... even if he has a financial interest (which is likely) it's being represented in the forum and in the message as a separate business entity... so it should be treated as one.

I stated in the first post that it's possible he 'gave' it rather than sold it, but that only makes it slightly less unethical.

[Elendil]

Because first of all, there is evidence. It's not unsubstantiated. If the fact that the name 'dietsmokes' is at the bottom of the message isn't enough for you, I guess that's too bad... but it's enough to convince a jury.

Second... even if he has a financial interest (which is likely) it's being represented in the forum and in the message as a separate business entity... so it should be treated as one.

I stated in the first post that it's possible he 'gave' it rather than sold it, but that only makes it slightly less unethical.

I missed that announcement where you were appointed judge and jury. I will attempt to pay closer attention next time.

[Krakkan]

You have to be careful when dealing with email marketing -- people have to agree to receive marketing in the first place and if the did not agree to it with the other company then it is wrong.

[gobluejd]

Because first of all, there is evidence. It's not unsubstantiated. If the fact that the name 'dietsmokes' is at the bottom of the message isn't enough for you, I guess that's too bad... but it's enough to convince a jury.

Second... even if he has a financial interest (which is likely) it's being represented in the forum and in the message as a separate business entity... so it should be treated as one.

Regardless, this is NOT proper business etiquette.

Also there is NO MENTION of the "other" site on his site.

Let's put it this way. If I own a business that sells dildos and I decide to open up a daycare, can I use those emails to contact and introduce my other business.....

I just "removed my email" from the new site. If it happens to be removed from dietsmokes, oh well.

I am probably making this a bigger issue than needed, I like Parker and he has taken care of me. It just bothered me a little and was not good practice.

[Walrus]

I missed that announcement where you were appointed judge and jury. I will attempt to pay closer attention next time.

Are you familiar with the theory of Ockham's Razor? It states that the logical (or simplest) explanation is typically the correct one. On one hand, we have a business that is run by Parker's brother, and the name 'dietsmokes' in the copyright line. On the other hand, Aliens came down and implanted the knowledge of our email addresses into Austen's brain then he got divine inspiration to follow it up with an email mentioning Dietsmokes in the ad.

I'm sorry if (and that's an IF, a quantifier... not a statement or accusation) fanboyism is keeping you from going from point A to point B.

[AGNES PEACOCK]

Upon reading this, I checked my email and lo and behold, I too have an email from Parker's brother. I did previously have one from Parker introducing him too.

I see at the bottom of the email I can unsubscribe. I will, but I should'nt have to.

My thoughts: Not quite ethical from a business partner, affiliate, or relative. The introduction, while questionable, was enough. The sales emails are another thing. I don't like it. Thank you Walrus for voicing this, someone needed to.