Sunday, January 11, 2009

just a reminder: please do not submit any more comments for this blog, ok?

*really*... I'm done here... (have not and will not read any further comments)


P.S. whether you love it or hate it... it's all good! :)

P.P.S. please only email me about this blog if and when you'd like to continue it -- I made this clear in the prior entry D.

Monday, January 5, 2009

whatever happened with the ebay v. craigslist lawsuit?

I was really waiting for the resolution to that (I thought it would be a pretty good place to end this blog) -- I've been pretty much marching in place waiting for that, posting much less ... I do believe it will clarify a lot things about craigslist, if the public *does* get to watch it.

But we should have heard about it by now -- it was supposed to go to court in September (way back). So what happen? Was it settled out of court so craigslist's secrets remain sealed? That would be very telling...

Why is craigslist hiding crucial things from the public? And more importantly, why isn't the media pointing out the fundamental contradiction between craigslist's public image and its lack of transparency?


P.S. Anyways, I feel like my work here is done -- I mean, there is enough here so if somebody finds this blog even years from now it shouldn't be very difficult to just do the research and bring it up to date. I hope somebody does it... and please let me know if you do! (I'd definitely read it and tell you what I think if you'd like that!)

If you find the "comic relief" entries irrelevant (most of them are :), I just needed a laugh maybe a bit more often than I should have had, you can easily easily filter it out...

OK... this is D. signing off -- another closed blog of mine... (please don't submit any more comments, just email me if and when you'd like to pick up where I left off -- thanks!)

Craig's false modesty: the removal that was anything but...

actually, not only that you didn't remove your words (they are dangling at the end of the quote with no apparent relationship with what's before them) but you brought more attention to them (and yourself) D.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

(housing discrimination) alright!

EVEN MORE: please read 3rd and 4th comment!

re: " My, and any other owner occupied multi-family dwellings, responsibility under the law is exactly as I mentioned.

I can advertise, mention, or discriminate against anyone I want to for any reason I want to without being in violation of the law.

Your mentioning of discrimination only applies to non-owner occupied dwellings, and "apartment buildings" which are generally anything with 4 or more apartments in it."

again, I suggest you check the law regarding *advertising* and make sure you understand what you can and cannot *advertise* (whether or not you can discriminate is not all that relevant -- you need to make sure you are not advertising anything you are not legally allowed to advertise...) D.

MORE: please read the comments to this entry!

re: "As a landlord for an owner occupied 2 family home, I can tell you that many many many rules and regulations for "Fair Housing" don't apply to me, and I can deny a person to live in the other half of my house for any reason I want. Skin Color, hair color, kids, pets, smokers, what car they drive, how much money they make, religion, sexual preference or any number of other things if I want to."

what you can legally do and what you can legally advertise are different things -- I suggest you make sure you understand what is your responsibility under the law as far as *advertising* if you are going to advertise on craigslist (or elsewhere): the prior court ruling only absolves *craigslist* of liability, NOT the craigslist ad posters/landlords

second round....


P.S. let's hope the legal system wakes up D.

Friday, January 2, 2009

(prostitution) wink-wink, nudge-nudge?

Craig is casually conversing with EscortRatings on Twitter -- (you can probably guess what "services" they provide) a number of back-and-forth shooting-the-breeze type comments (e.g.)


P.S. again, I can't believe he is *that* dumb -- he must realize who he is talking to and that his followers would notice that... D.

(prostitution) New Mexico Attorney General: is craigslist violating the consent agreement?

(last paragraph) -- it would certainly help if he would look into craigslist a bit more... here is where I would start:

(5th paragraph) "It would help our vice unit if they were able to monitor it just a little bit more," she said. "And the person that was advertising on their Web site if they were able to look at what they were soliciting, and what they were selling, that would definitely help us."

--> my guess is that craigslist doesn't *want* to do anything more than they think they *have* to do... to effectively address the prostitution problem, they would have to hire an adequate number of customer service people and forgo profits... (that's never been something they have been willing to do...)


P.S. it's pretty bad form to claim the money charged for the erotic ads is going to charity but refuse to make it clear that it does not in fact end-up in their pockets... (like the rest of the profits...) D.