Hi Haldan,
To be clear, I only posted the last two times, because people missed the point - the website design was not something I really cared about - it was simply knowing why what I and others were told our faces and took on good faith is directly contradicted by the claims of a man who is pretty deeply reviled, and who has screwed numerous people - allegedly including his leather goods supplier. It is also a man who has past history of digging himself out of messes by acting through public agents. It is fair to ask if he is doing that again.
Haldan wrote:
That being said, you're missing a point here. Scott (Murdoch) is not answerable to you. He does not HAVE to give you an answer. And really, the point is rather moot.
Actually, that isn't exactly correct. Scott IS NOT answerable to me or to anyone else, however:
If, as you posit, there is still some 'on going relationship' with Scott's business and the Prices then that is Scott's affair. For the last (roughly) year or so people have been doing business with Scott. He's been filling the orders and doing the customer service and as far as I can see IS the business. If he is sending money or whatever to the Prices that is his look out.
For the last 18 mos we have had people posting here that it is "ok to do business with RE because the Prices are not part of the business". Kate looked me in the eye and told me the same thing, and for the last few months I've told people the same.
Now Brian Price claims otherwise, and people have asked that question again and been ignored. Scott posted here and his answers contradicted each other, and others, such as Luca, have pointed out that he has never given an unambiguous answer.
This may not matter to
you, but there are many people who actively boycotted the Prices and do not want to give them money. People boycott business because they do not like the owners' behavior, political endorsements, business actions, etc. My business is no exception. That comes with being at all public.
OTOH, if you say one thing and do the other - if you say that there is no shared ownership or exchange of money and it turns out to be otherwise - then that is deception, because you hid the truth because you knew that would be bad business, whereas you are very popular. For *me* that is a matter of ethics.
If, as you seem to be unable to accept without reams of documentation, that there is NO relationship between the parties all you are doing is giving Scott free advertising and not really reflecting well on yourself at the same time.
Haldan, please read my posts again. Scott never gave a clear answer - he rambled, and his answers contradicted each other. By your logic, the 25 page thread from last February should have ended when Brian Price posted denying everything.
I am not insensitive to Scott being in a bad place, and likely pissed that this came out in public. (OTOH, I tried the private discussion at Pennsic.) Indeed, I can relate: Brian Price spent quite some time over the last 18 mos complaining that the real reason for the lawsuit was to steal his business for my own press's benefit - ignoring that a) FAP only came into being because of his practices, and b) that we weren't taking any profits.
Shy of opening my books, I can't prove that on a forum - you only have my word and the other authors' unambiguous words for proof. That's all I asked for: Scott said if you have questions, then ask. I did. I summed up what I wanted to know in two sentences, which could be answered "yes or no" for the first, and with a date for the second. I already said I'd accept that answer at face value and drop it. If he can't or won't answer that, then it goes back to what Chris Gilman said above - if you can't get a straight answer from someone, don't trust them. Everyone will make their own decisions about that.
But at least they'll know that a direct question was asked - in public - and it wasn't answered.
