Professional Web Applications Themes

Kagi response - Mac Applications & Software

On August 1st 2003 David purchased Thoth. On that same day very soon thereafter we received instructions from Brian Clark, the author of Thoth, to immediately refund David's purchase and to make sure we never allowed David to purchase products from Brian Clark ever again. I cannot recall a prior time when a software author asked us to ban one specific customer from purchasing only their products. This was an entirely new situation. Kagi has what are referred to as negative files (as does every online store) containing pieces of customer data that we use to prevent additional purchases from ...

  1. #1

    Default Kagi response

    On August 1st 2003 David purchased Thoth.

    On that same day very soon thereafter we received instructions from
    Brian Clark, the author of Thoth, to immediately refund David's
    purchase and to make sure we never allowed David to purchase products
    from Brian Clark ever again.

    I cannot recall a prior time when a software author asked us to ban
    one specific customer from purchasing only their products. This was an
    entirely new situation.

    Kagi has what are referred to as negative files (as does every online
    store) containing pieces of customer data that we use to prevent
    additional purchases from known bad customers. The negative files
    apply to all purchases regardless of software author. The negative
    files are not software author specific because we never envisioned
    that a software author would turn away a sale from a legit customer.

    When we were presented with Brian's wish that David be prevented from
    ordering any of Brian's products, there was only one solution that I
    could imagine; add David's data to the negative file. So that is what
    we did. When the refund was processed, it was set to the reason code
    that was closest to the actual situation and that would add David's
    data to the negative file. That reason code is something like;
    supplier initiated refund due to customer fraud. Obviously that is not
    the situation but it is the only reason code that does an immediate
    refund, states that the supplier initiated it, and adds the customer
    data to the negative files. Who knew we needed a reason code of;
    supplier initiated refund because of customer personality.

    David was refunded, and David would not be able to order additional
    products from Brian Clark (or anyone else at Kagi).

    David has bought products from Kagi prior to this and David has bought
    a product since this from Kagi, but not with the email or credit card
    used to buy Thoth.

    David attempted to purchase something recently and he got the generic
    message that states that the charge has been declined, or something
    like that, very non-descriptive. We have considered giving a more
    specific decline message that says something like "Your transaction
    has been declined because we have blocked this specific email address
    and we have blocked your credit card and if you want to bypass our
    fraud filters, just use different ones." But we kind of thought that
    providing that much detail would defeat the purpose of the negative
    list. So the message is non-descript. For every other person who gets
    declined because of the negative list, they go away and fraud some
    other store. Since David is not a frauder, he researched it and
    complained to us.

    David sent email to Kagi and communicated with Mike. Mike provided him
    with the data available to him in the database (software author refund
    requested due to fraud). After communications with Brian Clark, Mike
    removed David from the negative file, except he only removed the
    credit card number. Mike is our second newest employee and he didn't
    realize that he needed to remove the email address also. Mike replied
    to David that he had removed him from the negative list and David
    found that he still could not order products. David was not happy and
    dealt with the situation in his normal tactful manner.

    One claim David makes is that Mike must have seen his posting to this
    news group because soon after the posting he got a reply from Mike.
    Mike doesn't have netnews access, I didn't have access to netnews, no
    one at Kagi did prior to today.

    In the meantime, David sent emails to bunches of Kagi addresses and I
    don't know about you but when our spam filters see a bunch of email
    addresses in the TO field, it looks like spam and gets dealt with
    accordingly. The trouble ticket system did receive the copy of David's
    email and operational folks were replying to David on a periodic
    basis. But since this situation is so unusual, they were not able
    understand the situation nor able to immediately resolve the issue.

    The original posting to netnews was sent to just me by folks who read
    this news group. Their forwarding of the posting got through my
    personal spam filters because it was an email just to me. They also
    provided suggestions on how I could get access to netnews so that I
    could post a reply. Thank you all.

    Last night I researched as much as I could and replied to David and
    copied Brian. Today I received additional information from Brian that
    helped me remember the uniqueness of the situation and why the refund
    was marked as it was. This evening, after sitting around all day for
    jury duty, I was able to sign up for netnews access, and post this
    reply.

    Last night I removed the email block and informed David that I think
    all the blocks have been removed such that he should be able to order
    through Kagi in the future. I told him that I have not ordered a
    product using his data (and am not going to) so if it does not work,
    to have him contact us. But I think it should now work.

    I have also asked him to never order another product from Brian Clark.

    The only falsehood David can claim was that our "your transaction has
    been denied" message was incorrect. In the past, we didn't want to
    tell frauders how to get past our fraud filters and except for David,
    all the other entries in the negative list are frauders.

    For David to make a claim of slander and libel kind of requires that
    Kagi employees post communications about David in a public forum, say
    like comp.sys.mac.apps perhaps. Prior to this time, no one at Kagi
    posted anything concerning David's communications to a public forum so
    I think claiming slander and libel is a bit extreme, perhaps even
    slanderous and libelous?

    I'll admit that a better solution would have been for us to have
    refunded David and then informed him that he was not to order any more
    products from Brian Clark. If this happens again in the next 9 years
    we'll know how to handle it.

    I started Kagi in 1994 and as far as I can remember, we have never had
    a product supplier refuse to deliver their products to a legit
    customer. David is the first legit customer that a product supplier
    has refused to sell their product to.

    ------
    Questions and comments raised in other postings:

    Q: Is it legal to refuse to sell it to an individual is something
    offered for sale to the public?
    A: From what I remember of a contract law class in college, I think
    D.F. Manno provided the best answer to that question.

    C: "But if they already said there's fraud involved when it was
    actually a personality conflict, that can be construed as libelous
    behavior, and can only alienate their customers."
    A: The only person we told that our systems indicated that there was
    fraud involved was David and he decided to tell the world. If anyone
    is to charged with libeling David, it would have to be David. As far
    as I know, David is the first legit customer to get grouped with
    frauders on the negative lists.

    C: "Kagi is claiming I attempted fraud and refusing to provide proof
    or rectify."
    A: Kagi made no such public claim, David did. Kagi employees were
    communicating with David in an attempt to rectify the situation and at
    no time did a Kagi employee communicate to the world that David had
    attempted fraud. The word "fraud" was in the text associated with the
    reason code used to satisfy the software author's request and was not
    a statement or conclusion by a Kagi employee.

    C: "Whenever any one company reaches a position of dominance in its
    field, that company becomes greedy, abusive, arrogant, and
    self-righteous. Standard Oil was onne such company; Microsoft, PayPal,
    and Kagi are current examples, All of these companies are dishonest
    and unetichal."
    A: Kagi may not be perfect but to say that we are dishonest and
    unethical is truely libel.
    Kee Guest

  2. #2

    Default Kagi Response

    On August 1st 2003 David purchased Thoth.

    On that same day very soon thereafter we received instructions from
    Brian Clark, the author of Thoth, to immediately refund David's
    purchase and to make sure we never allowed David to purchase products
    from Brian Clark ever again.

    I cannot recall a prior time when a software author asked us to ban
    one specific customer from purchasing only their products. This was an
    entirely new situation.

    Kagi has what are referred to as negative files (as does every online
    store) containing pieces of customer data that we use to prevent
    additional purchases from known bad customers. The negative files
    apply to all purchases regardless of software author. The negative
    files are not software author specific because we never envisioned
    that a software author would turn away a sale from a legit customer.

    When we were presented with Brian's wish that David be prevented from
    ordering any of Brian's products, there was only one solution that I
    could imagine; add David's data to the negative file. So that is what
    we did. When the refund was processed, it was set to the reason code
    that was closest to the actual situation and that would add David's
    data to the negative file. That reason code is something like;
    supplier initiated refund due to customer fraud. Obviously that is not
    the situation but it is the only reason code that does an immediate
    refund, states that the supplier initiated it, and adds the customer
    data to the negative files. Perhaps we need a new a reason code of;
    supplier initiated refund because of customer's personality and tact.

    David was refunded, and David would not be able to order additional
    products from Brian Clark (or anyone else at Kagi).

    David has bought products from Kagi prior to this and David has bought
    a product since this from Kagi, but not with the email or credit card
    used to buy Thoth.

    David attempted to purchase something recently and he got the generic
    message that states that the charge has been declined, or something
    like that, very non-descriptive. We have considered giving a more
    specific decline message that says something like "Your transaction
    has been declined because we have blocked this specific email address
    and we have blocked your credit card and if you want to bypass our
    fraud filters, just use different ones." But we kind of thought that
    providing that much detail would defeat the purpose of the negative
    list. So the message is non-descript. For every other person who gets
    declined because of the negative list, they go away and fraud some
    other store. Since David is not a frauder, he researched it and
    complained to us.

    David sent email to Kagi and communicated with Mike. Mike provided him
    with the data available to him in the database (software author refund
    requested due to fraud). After communications with Brian Clark, Mike
    removed David from the negative file, except he only removed the
    credit card number. Mike is our second newest employee and he didn't
    realize that he needed to remove the email address also. Mike replied
    to David that he had removed him from the negative list and David
    found that he still could not order products. David was not happy and
    dealt with the situation in his normal tactful manner.

    One claim David makes is that Mike must have seen his posting to this
    news group because soon after the posting he got a reply from Mike.
    Mike doesn't have netnews access, I didn't have access to netnews, no
    one at Kagi did prior to today.

    In the meantime, David sent emails to bunches of Kagi addresses and I
    don't know about you but when our spam filters see a bunch of email
    addresses in the TO field, it looks like spam and gets dealt with
    accordingly. The trouble ticket system did receive the copy of David's
    email and operational folks were replying to David on a periodic
    basis. But since this situation is so unusual, they were not able
    understand the situation nor able to immediately resolve the issue.

    The original posting to netnews was sent to me by folks who read this
    news group. Their forwarding of the posting got through my personal
    spam filters because it was an email just to me. They also provided
    suggestions on how I could get access to netnews so that I could post
    a reply. Thank you all. groups.google.com is a pretty easy way to do
    netnews.

    Last night I researched as much as I could and replied to David and
    copied Brian. Today I received additional information from Brian that
    helped me remember the uniqueness of the situation and why the refund
    was marked as it was. This evening, after sitting around all day for
    jury duty, I was able to sign up for netnews access, and post this
    reply.

    Last night I removed the email block and informed David that I think
    all the blocks have been removed such that he should be able to order
    through Kagi in the future. I told him that I have not ordered a
    product using his data (and am not going to) so if it does not work,
    to have him contact us. But I think it should now work.

    I have also asked him to never order another product from Brian Clark.

    The only falsehood David can claim was that our "your transaction has
    been denied" message was incorrect. In the past, we didn't want to
    tell frauders how to get past our fraud filters and except for David,
    all the other entries in the negative list are frauders. David is not
    a frauder.

    For David to make a claim of slander and libel kind of requires that
    Kagi employees post communications about David in a public forum, say
    for example comp.sys.mac.apps perhaps. Prior to this time, no one at
    Kagi posted anything concerning David's communications to a public
    forum so I think claiming slander and libel is a bit extreme, perhaps
    even slanderous and libelous?

    I'll admit that a better solution would have been for us to have
    refunded David and then informed him that he was not to order any more
    products from Brian Clark. If this happens again in the next 9 years
    we'll know how to handle it.

    I started Kagi in 1994 and as far as I can remember, we have never had
    a product supplier refuse to deliver their products to a legit
    customer. David is the first legit customer that a product supplier
    has refused to sell their product to.

    ------
    Questions and comments raised in other postings:

    Q: Is it legal to refuse to sell it to an individual is something
    offered for sale to the public?
    A: From what I remember of a contract law class in college, I think
    D.F. Manno provided the best answer to that question.

    C: "But if they already said there's fraud involved when it was
    actually a personality conflict, that can be construed as libelous
    behavior, and can only alienate their customers."
    A: The only person we told that our systems indicated that there was
    fraud involved was David and he decided to tell the world. If anyone
    is to charged with libeling David, it would have to be David. As far
    as I know, David is the first legit customer to get grouped with
    frauders on the negative lists.

    C: "Kagi is claiming I attempted fraud and refusing to provide proof
    or rectify."
    A: Kagi made no such public claim, David did. Kagi employees were
    communicating with David in an attempt to rectify the situation and at
    no time did a Kagi employee communicate to the world that David had
    attempted fraud. The word "fraud" was in the text associated with the
    reason code used to satisfy the software author's request and was not
    a statement or conclusion by a Kagi employee.

    C: "Whenever any one company reaches a position of dominance in its
    field, that company becomes greedy, abusive, arrogant, and
    self-righteous. Standard Oil was onne such company; Microsoft, PayPal,
    and Kagi are current examples, All of these companies are dishonest
    and unetichal."
    A: Kagi may not be perfect but to say that we are dishonest and
    unethical is truely libel.
    Kee Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Kagi Response

    <posted & mailed>

    Kee Nethery wrote:
     

    Kagi would be far better off taking the "high road" here than getting into
    reverse recriminations.

    Yes, branding this guy as a "frauder" was private and internal to Kagi,
    however it was also, to put it mildly, extraordinarily stupid and
    irresponsible. Precisely because of what happened here: Kagi employees
    reviewing the data at a later time have only FALSE and MISLEADING
    information on which to act. (Yes, Mike may have tried -- however
    ineffectively -- to remove the customer from the negative file; but he ALSO
    accused him of fraud by "provid[ing] him with the data available in the
    database". That's YOUR fault, not Mike's, or David's, or Brian's.)

    The proper responses to Brian's original request would have been either to
    A) modify your negative file format to accomodate the new situation or B)
    tell Brian you could not do what he requested. Instead you chose to lie.
    You can try to justify that by saying you lied only to yourself (and your
    employees), but it doesn't change the fact that you permanently recorded
    information you knew was wrong and restricted a legitimate customer's
    future activities in areas far more broad than necessary or even requested
    by Brian. None of this may be technically "illegal", but to defend it as
    you are is to suggest that it's somehow "right" -- and it's not. Not by any
    stretch of the imagination.

    You were wrong. Say it. Apologise. ("I'll admit that a better solution
    [...]" isn't even a start.) I can understand that YOU feel wounded that he
    made this issue public. However, the original mistake was clearly Kagi's,
    in abusing your negative file for a vindictive author's juvenile revenge.
    However "private", you falsely (and knowingly) accused this guy of fraud.
    How would YOU feel?

    I've bought through Kagi before. I'll be less inclined to do so in the
    future. And NOT because you made a mistake, (though it was an awfully
    foolish and obvious mistake), but because of your brash posturing in this
    jumble of defensive jibberish...

    (And that's not even getting into what I think of a shareware author so
    vindictive as to try to make "a store" refuse a sale to an annoying
    customer. Illegal? No. Immoral? Questionable, at best. But reasonable?
    Justifiable? Excusable? Absolutely not, on any count.)

    --
    /--------------------[ com ]--------------------\
    | Hewlett-Packard Company Tru64 UNIX & VMS Thread Architect |
    | My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/ |
    \----[ http://homepage.mac.com/dbutenhof/Threads/Threads.html ]---/
    David Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Kagi response

    [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
    the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

    In article <google.com>, Kee
    Nethery <com> wrote:
     

    It seems to me that this entire situation could have been avoided by
    refusing Brian Clark's request. By allowing Brian to refuse purchases
    to one specific individual, based on nothing more than personality
    conflict, you generated one extremely dissatisfied customer with a loud
    mouth, who in turn created some quite negative publicity.

    You said that a better solution would be to refund David and ask him
    not to buy further products from Brian Clark. I disagree. I think the
    core of the issue lies squarely at the feet of Brian. The best
    solution would have been to tell Brian that if he wants to refuse the
    sale based on personality conflict, he can bear the expense of issuing
    a refund himself and mail a check back to David.

    --
    -Thomas

    <http://www.bitjuggler.com/>
    Thomas Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Kagi response

    com (Kee Nethery) writes:
     

    And after that, who cares? I think you've read the responses to the
    original poster and have a feel for what the opinions are. Please don't get
    ed into a long drawn out defense -- you've stated what happened, and I
    hope you let it go at that. Kagi has not suffered from this guy's posts,
    and you've explained what went horribly wrong for the poor, defenseless
    customer of Brian.

    Let it go, Kee, and have a wonderful day.
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
    Phil Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Fascinating. I haven't been following this conflict; I'd noted the
    messages regarding David's complaints about Kagi but hadn't read any of
    them. But in reading Kee's description of events, I am reminded of the
    old adage that one shouldn't ascribe to malice that which can easily be
    explained by incompetence.
     

    So instead of dealing with a unique situation in a unique way, Kagi used
    the general "he's trying to cheat us" capability to deny a customer
    access to its services. And further, it provided no explanation for its
    actions. Gee, what a surprise to discover that the locked out customer
    is upset at being treated like a criminal.

    And once you did discover the need for a way to deny a customer purchase
    from one specific vendor, you ignored that need and used your broad
    solution. Therein lies your mistake.
     

    I believe this last remark demonstrates a lack of professionalism and
    sensitivity to the customer. You shut the customer out, setting up a
    situation that is guaranteed to provide him with misinformation and to
    frustrate the hell out of him. And then you blame him for getting upset
    and for being unprofessional?
     

    Sounds like mistake number two: deleting customer complaint email
    because of high volume. Gee, you upset a customer and then put in place
    a system that can delete his incoming email because there's too much of
    it. Not a way to defuse the situation, is it?

    Having once dealt with stonewalling from a supplier, I can understand
    David's frustration. I don't know him and have no idea whether he is a
    reasonable individual. But the situation you have described is one that
    would make even a reasonable person angry. You ed up in a big way,
    first by relying on a too-severe mechanism in your software to solve a
    point problem, second by not doenting the hell out of what you admit
    was a unique situation so that it would not come back to haunt you, and
    third by having a spam filtering system that also served to silence an
    irate customer.

    If you expect to come out of this looking like a professional with a
    wronged reputation, I'm afraid that you failed miserably.

    --
    Hank Shiffman http://www.disordered.org
    Have Opinion, Will Travel org
    Mountain View, California
    Hank Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Phil Stripling <zzn.com> wrote:
     

    Too late. Kagi touched the tarbaby when they participated in one of
    Brian Clark's never-ending feuds.
    Neill Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Kagi response

    net (Neill Massello) writes:
     
    >
    > Too late. Kagi touched the tarbaby when they participated in one of
    > Brian Clark's never-ending feuds.[/ref]

    :-) Well, then my advice is, if you find you're digging yourself into a
    hole, stop digging.
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
    Phil Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Kee Nethery wrote:
     

    That's what we wanted to hear. We just wanted you to reassure us
    that you were working to ensure the loyalty of your customers.
    George Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Hank Shiffman <org> wrote:
     

    Well, well, well Mister Hank Knowitall I admire your intelligence, and
    really wonder why dont you start a selling software licenses on the net
    instead of giving lessons.

    I'll just give you my lesson N1 : It's always much easier to find an
    error in someone's work than to do the job in the first place.

    And Kee : Kee...p on going your excellent work for our softwares, thanks
    a bunch ;-)

    --
    Benot Leraillez

    La douleur des autres est tout fait supportable, hors les cris.
    Benoit Guest

  11. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Removed by Administrator
    Hank Guest
    Moderated Post

  12. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Removed by Administrator
    Michael Guest
    Moderated Post

  13. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Removed by Administrator
    Hank Guest
    Moderated Post

  14. #14

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Hank Shiffman <org> wrote:
     
    >
    > Guess I won't be buying any of your software. I'm sure you don't care.
    > Heck, you may rejoice in that knowledge. More fool you.[/ref]

    Well this really shows how far you can see and how many neurons you've
    got, because I was talking about what Kagi has been doing for our (the
    Macintosh community) softwares and I thank you for beleiving that I
    wrote all these billion lines of code.


    PS - If I had written all those softwares I'm not sure I would've given
    away to a third party the business of selling then. As I see it I'd have
    a 50/50 chance of ending up with Kee or with YOU! I'd rather do it
    myself all the way than talking business with Herr Knowitall.

    --
    Benot Leraillez

    La douleur des autres est tout fait supportable, hors les cris.
    Benoit Guest

  15. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Removed by Administrator
    forge Guest
    Moderated Post

  16. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Removed by Administrator
    Gregory Guest
    Moderated Post

  17. #17

    Default Re: Kagi response

    Thomas Reed <spam.me> wrote:
     

    I don't agree. I also started a business in 1995. About a year ago I
    had a request that was unique in the 8 years we've been doing business.
    As such, it was not handled correctly and the customer called and
    complained.

    Since the customer took the time to respond in a rational (if unhappy)
    manner, we were able to find the problem and resolve it immediately,
    with a replacement going out the next day.

    David is the hot head that took an error and turned it into a public
    disaster in which David is the only one made to look like a fool.

    I think Kagi's response sounds completely believable and plausible. I
    have bought through them many times, and will continue to do so.


    --
    - Burt Johnson
    MindStorm, Inc.
    http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
    Burt Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Kagi response

    In article <1g273xc.nzhnhm1gun5j4N%com>,
    com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
     

    Based on his story, David appears to have been lied to multiple times
    before deciding to take it to a public forum. I can sympathize. Several
    years ago I was having a terrible time with a large well-known vendor. I
    was lied to, I was hung up on and I was insulted. I didn't actively
    decide to take it to Usenet - just wrote them off as a crap company no
    matter how well-known they were - but a couple of months later when I
    saw someone asking for recommendations for related products I offered my
    experience. Two days later my problem was resolved.

    G
    Gregory Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Kagi response

    In article <1g273xc.nzhnhm1gun5j4N%com>, Burt
    Johnson <com> wrote:
     
    >
    > I don't agree. I also started a business in 1995. About a year ago I
    > had a request that was unique in the 8 years we've been doing business.
    > As such, it was not handled correctly and the customer called and
    > complained.
    >
    > Since the customer took the time to respond in a rational (if unhappy)
    > manner, we were able to find the problem and resolve it immediately,
    > with a replacement going out the next day.[/ref]

    I believe David did first go to Kagi. It sounds like he tried to find
    a solution to the problem for 4 days before his first post, and waited
    another 7 days after that for Kagi's promised solution to appear before
    posting a second time. Do you think he does not have a right to be
    angry about this? Especially when you consider he was told
    (erroneously) that there was a charge of fraud against him?
     

    Actually, I think this whole thing makes Brian Clark (who refused
    David's purchase based on nothing more than a personality conflict)
    look like a fool, makes Kagi look a bit silly for making some poor
    decisions (like going along with Brian's request in the first place),
    and makes David look like a (justifiably) irate customer.

    Were I in David's position, I'd be just as vocal -- though my wrath
    would have been directed more at Brian Clark than at Kagi. (Kagi
    earned a little, though, for poor handling of the situation and for
    allowing it to happen in the first place.)
     

    Yes, it does. I believe that everything happened exactly as Kee
    described. That's a bit beside the point, though. The bottom line is
    that Kagi had several opportunities to avoid the end result of David
    blasting them on Usenet. At any stage, if different choices had been
    made, David might have redirected his ire at Brian instead of at Kagi.

    --
    -Thomas

    <http://www.bitjuggler.com/>
    Thomas Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Kagi response

    On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:26:25 GMT, Gregory Weston <com> wrote: 
    >
    > Based on his story, David appears to have been lied to multiple times
    > before deciding to take it to a public forum.[/ref]

    "Lied to" specifically means "was intentionally deceived by someone who
    knew they were stating something incorrectly". The guy from Kagi
    explained the situation, and I believe that while he was told wrong
    information, he was not lied to...


    Dave Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Slow login response response on TS 03 in AD mixed mode
    By Greg Glenn in forum Windows Server
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 25th, 09:53 PM
  2. Response.Flush / Response.Redirect
    By Richard N. in forum ASP
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 19th, 01:06 AM
  3. the brain trust at kagi
    By David in forum Mac Applications & Software
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 5th, 08:07 AM
  4. what's the deal at Kagi?
    By David in forum Mac Applications & Software
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: October 4th, 05:18 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 4th, 02:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139