Very important....

J

JackT

#121
#121
timeline question (please pardon my ignorance)

I'm trying to figure out what time frame y'all are talking about here....

I became "acquainted" w/ the JAG site at just about the time they started to become a "pay" membership service ($120/yr for premium or 1 review for 3 months nonpremium (reviews two-months back), I believe) .... (seems like quite a few years ago). During all the time that I've known JAG, I can say that I ALWAYS suspected a pro-Julies bias. I took that for what I felt it was worth, and made my hobbying decisions accordingly.

RM: When did JAG's alleged "conflict of interest" begin?? (before I became "aquainted" w/ the JAG site, I suspect? LONG before Julie's "new" website, right?)
 
L

littleguy

Gold
#122
#122
Rufus,

How 'bout this ?

Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others may be right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management may have supply side interests and benefits.

Keep in mind that while I may not be able to trust JAG I don't really believe it was ever JAG I "trusted" in the first place. It was the posters on JAG whose information I read and followed.

As Skelly said more eloquently than I, I learned by listening to people who's tastes (and pocketbook) mirrored my own.

Frankly, off hand, I cannot think of a single bad experience I was led to by any poster on JAG. Ever. (Actually I can say the same thing about UG (but that wasn't the issue here))
 
M

mydesign

#123
#123
Originally posted by Rufus Moses
I wish some of you old timers would step up to the plate and say something like this:

"Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others are right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management has supply side interests and benefits. And worse, they won't admit it. So I can't trust JAG like I used to."
Click to expand...

OK. Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus has been saying the same thing for months, and is really starting to sound like a broken record. Who gives a shit thatat one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports but that JAG management has supply side interests and benefits... I dont! And worse, Rufus is too blind with rage to admit it. So I never trusted JAG, was never a JAG member, and don't really give a shit who MM is sleeping with.
 
L

littleguy

Gold
#124
#124
"BTW, my relatively short(6 months) experience with JAG came to an end the day I couldnt access the reviews due to it becoming a pay service. Guess you could say my distrust started there and I havent been back since.

That did become annoying, JAG becoming a pay site. I was "grandfathered" in because I had sent in a voluntary contribution before that actually happened.

OTOH, I don't know how JAG, or UG for that matter, can be supported solely by advertisers. I mean, AFAIK, Julie's is the only advertiser/link on JAG. How on earth could the income from only Julie's (assuming for the moment of course it's paid advertising - OK guys, the disclaimer) The advertising rate CAN'T be that high per month can it ?

Frankly, I don't know how Allen and Slinky run UG with the (seemingly/relatively) few advertisers on their site. I mean this computer shit is usually pretty fucking expensive. Isn't it ???

So I guess I'm kinda amazed that either of these places can survive without becoming a pay site of some sort.
 
Last edited:
R

Rufus Moses

#125
#125
LG...just keep in mind that the membership of JAG was no coincidence...the "classic JAG" was the result of the trusted environment the previous MC's carefully built. For example, guys trusted that JAG management tried to keep providers out, not invite them in and then lie about it. This encouraged reviews of great candor. Not the fluffball parties you find elsewhere.

I could go on...but if membership is the measure of the board I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to what it means when so many of the authors of the so-called "classic JAG" posts have voted with their feet and left...or were thrown out...

(And on the topic of trust...I can tell you that *none* of the previous MC's would ever have taken posts from the private board and made them public...as is the current practice...what more do you need to see these are not honorable men?)
 
Last edited:
S

SkellyChamp

#126
#126
Originally posted by Rufus Moses
SkellyChamp, I appreciate what you are saying, but rather than getting into long epistemological debates I wish some of you old timers would step up to the plate and say something like this:

"Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others are right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management has supply side interests and benefits. And worse, they won't admit it. So I can't trust JAG like I used to."
Click to expand...
But RM, like I said whether they had or have conflicts of interest doesn't bother me in the least, regardless of how they held themselves out. I've always gone by what I know. I'm just not that noble. It was less for me a matter of trust than (a) JAG's shrinking universe in 2000, (b) an increase in incivility (much as is happening here lately I'm afraid to add) and (c) a lapse of my premier membership.

Now, I understand your increased sensitivity to what happened and is happening over there due to your being a former MC and what you see as a perversion of what others created and you carried on as well as some self-flagellation that somehow you should have and could have done a better job in passing the torch. And to my computer unsophisticated mind you make at the least a plausible argument, but I can't say that I share your passion.

Now I will say that JAG certainly came off as very pro-Julies but that never bothered me - any lead I followed to Julie's worked out fine indeed as did almost every other lead that I followed. Whether that would be true today or not I don't know. It might not due to its apparent affiliation with Julies but on the other hand it very well might still be true.

Lastly, for my own edification (this goes to anyone with knowledge)

If MC owns his own servers and Julie site is run off those servers does that mean he is operating Julie's website and must have an interest or can that mean that Julie could be paying him access to the server which would of course be a normal business transaction with the appearnce of conflict sure but maybe not in actuality.

Second, if MC doesn't own his own servers couldn't he still have staff he has to pay to run the site and the expense of buying access to a server which could justify the need to charge.

Mind you I'm not saying and don't even know if this is true or your "facts" are correct, but if I had to convict by reasonable doubt I'd need more answers. If by preponderance of the evidence you might have me.
 
S

SkellyChamp

#127
#127
Originally posted by Rufus Moses

I could go on...but if membership is the measure of the board I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to what it means when so many of the authors of the so-called "classic JAG" posts have voted with their feet and left...or were thrown out...

(And on the topic of trust...I can tell you that *none* of the previous MC's would ever have taken posts from the private board and made them public...as is the current practice...what more do you need to see these are not honorable men?)
Click to expand...
RM

Now I would agree with you here. To my mind both of those are facts I can agree with and were part of the reason for my departure. Not whether there was conflict of interest.
 
Thorn

Thorn

#129
#129
Originally posted by mydesign

So I never trusted JAG, was never a JAG member, and don't really give a shit who MM is sleeping with.
Click to expand...
Some of this is the basis of my feelings. That I never expected JAG to be anything other then what we now all know JAG to be, so its not major issue with me.

Its information that I want. And the viablity of that I base on the specific poster. Except that JAG has some significant and seemingly very legit posters, all of whom are JAG. Now THAT isn't quite kosher.

I picked them off quite readily [as did most of the ex-jagsters on UG]. So that isn't an issue with me, but I've always had a very good antenna for picking off posers and imposters on the net. I chaulk it up to being around these parts since this thing stopped being a military project and became ARPAnet. I don't think others are as keen as I am [and you can paint me with a big ol' brush of pomposity if you want to]. So, I believe it takes advantage of those individuals who don't know the customer in the audience shilling the product is the same guy on the stage selling the snake oil. :)

I acknowledge, in the end, that the point is moot. I have used, and will continue to use, JAG as a resource. I just don't hold JAG, in total, in as high regard [that sounds funny when one is talking about a whoreboard] as I once did.
 
Last edited:
R

Rufus Moses

#130
#130
As long as it is common knowledge that JAG mgmt shills for and gets considerations from the supply side, that JohnB is actually the operator of JAG and not just a disinterested member, that they give favored providers access the JAG...

all while denying left and right they ever do this...and throwing out members who speak the truth about this...

as long as this is common knowledge...then my work in this regard is done...
 
C

candie

#131
#131
Would anyone know how I can get off that spam ***** from Jag I keep getting lately.

Apparently, they seem to need new members and are trying so despartely. I block they come back with a new *****.

candie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top