GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Tipsy · 06-06-2003, 04:48 AM

How anyone can defend APIC is totally beyond me. It's like saying it's OK for police to batton people every time they suspect somebody of a crime guilty or not. The guy running it is only semi-literate (take a look at any of the 'official' e-mails he sends) and with the business of your average school child.

I had some fun with him a few days ago. Seems he's good at pissing off just about everybody, although amazingly some can't see a problem with his methods. Still, you have to blame the idiots who use him. If they had an IQ high enough to see where the problems lay he wouldn't be in business.

My problem was a simple one in the end. Somebody I host a site for (I'm down as tech/admin hence he got my info from the whois) who had 100% licensed content and is not a native English speaker, missed a part of the license terms saying images could only be a certain size when used outside of protected areas. It was all a mess and it's also possible the provider 'forgot' that she actually had the license. Hard to be sure because Easton provides little or no useful information to help resolve stuff - he's too busy shouting thief to the whole word and feeling smug.

APIC's FIRST port of call is to find eveybody associated with the domain from sponsors up to the host(s) and e-mail them to say you are a thief. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Nah - were that the case the industry wouldn't be full of people laughing at the guy for the idiot he is. Bear in mind that this e-mail didn't even mention the domain owner - just random info picked up from the whois, so the person who actually made the mistake doesn't even get a mention in the original BS mails.

Crazy thing is this could have been settled in 5 mins with a simple e-mail from the content provider. Involving Easton dragged it out into a 4 hour pissing match to resolve a simple issue and left a bitter taste in many mouths. There's now at least two companies I will never do business with and from the shit that Easton stirred they will probably think twice before doing any with me, none of which would have happened without APIC's involvement. Even with APIC's involvement a very short and simple e-mail just to the site concerned would have resolved the issue quickly. Telling the whole world somebody's a crook before any facts have been established makes about as much sense as anything else Easton does ie none.

The guy simply hasn't a clue so why use him? There are good, easy and FAR more effective alternatives as has been mentioned. Even before my own run-in I would never have used any company with any involvement in APIC from experiences others I know well have had with them. This mess just proved that position to have been right.

06-06-2003, 04:48 AM
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	How anyone can defend APIC is totally beyond me. It's like saying it's OK for police to batton people every time they suspect somebody of a crime guilty or not. The guy running it is only semi-literate (take a look at any of the 'official' e-mails he sends) and with the business of your average school child. I had some fun with him a few days ago. Seems he's good at pissing off just about everybody, although amazingly some can't see a problem with his methods. Still, you have to blame the idiots who use him. If they had an IQ high enough to see where the problems lay he wouldn't be in business. My problem was a simple one in the end. Somebody I host a site for (I'm down as tech/admin hence he got my info from the whois) who had 100% licensed content and is not a native English speaker, missed a part of the license terms saying images could only be a certain size when used outside of protected areas. It was all a mess and it's also possible the provider 'forgot' that she actually had the license. Hard to be sure because Easton provides little or no useful information to help resolve stuff - he's too busy shouting thief to the whole word and feeling smug. APIC's FIRST port of call is to find eveybody associated with the domain from sponsors up to the host(s) and e-mail them to say you are a thief. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Nah - were that the case the industry wouldn't be full of people laughing at the guy for the idiot he is. Bear in mind that this e-mail didn't even mention the domain owner - just random info picked up from the whois, so the person who actually made the mistake doesn't even get a mention in the original BS mails. Crazy thing is this could have been settled in 5 mins with a simple e-mail from the content provider. Involving Easton dragged it out into a 4 hour pissing match to resolve a simple issue and left a bitter taste in many mouths. There's now at least two companies I will never do business with and from the shit that Easton stirred they will probably think twice before doing any with me, none of which would have happened without APIC's involvement. Even with APIC's involvement a very short and simple e-mail just to the site concerned would have resolved the issue quickly. Telling the whole world somebody's a crook before any facts have been established makes about as much sense as anything else Easton does ie none. The guy simply hasn't a clue so why use him? There are good, easy and FAR more effective alternatives as has been mentioned. Even before my own run-in I would never have used any company with any involvement in APIC from experiences others I know well have had with them. This mess just proved that position to have been right. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.