"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what I
wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are trying to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

On 3/8/10 4:00 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are trying to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.

That is absolute, complete, total b.s., herring.
What have you posted lately?

1. Snarky comments about other posters.
2. Snarky comments about the beliefs of others.
3. Attempts to persuade other posters to filter or not respond to
posters you don't like.
4. A bunch of old and stupid jokes or anecdotes, some of which are
ethnically insulting.
5. A bunch of URLs leading to various youtube renditions of
saccharine-sweet, mostly pseudo patriotic old songs.

All that crap does is take up bandwidth. It adds nothing to the quality
or sanity of rec.boats.

I am thankful, though, for your posting less nonsense about your golf
game, your camper trailer, your various sick relatives, et cetera.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:00:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Do you know to whom you're responding?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H



Nope. I've lost track of who's who in this newsgroup. I really just
quickly browse the headers once in a while.

Rec.boats is wrecked.

Eisboch


Yup. I thought maybe you might know. I sure don't. A few of us are trying
to
keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an uphill battle.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H


Perhaps you should look in the mirror. There might be others here who've
contributed to the lack of civility, but you're certainly contributed with
your derogatory bs and right wing rants.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what
I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was ridiculous
for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask specific
questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you weren't that
prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be typical of people
in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all that, but sometimes hoops
have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mar 8, 12:20*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...





John H wrote:

Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

plonk slammer, again

Scotty

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Wrong, Internet Mavon.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what
I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all that,
but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read what
people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3 month
due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back to
review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion on
each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:54 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

No one berated Richard for anything. I simply asked a question. Apparently a
simple question ****ed off you and Harry.

Tough.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all
that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read what
people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

I didn't read what you wrote in its entirety. I'm not being paid to read it.



Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.

So, that seems pretty reasonable.

2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.

Also reasonable.

3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back to
review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

I'm sure they had other priorities. Was it a merger between Exxon and Mobile
or was it, as you said a small business being eaten by a much larger one?
You're likely not their first priority.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion
on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Without knowing the specifics of the questions and your answers, this seems
pretty reasonable. I'll ding them for waiting to last minute, but it still
probably needed to get done.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 3/8/10 5:34 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:49:54 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:

John H wrote:


Do you know to whom you're responding?

Richard responded to a post with 2 main subjects.

1. Patent searches.
2. The dishonesty of person named calling itself deplum, who claims to
be a patent attorney.

Because Richard had a telling and traumatic experience with patent
attorneys.

What...bothers you he didn't feel like talking about dog puke?
As my big sis used to say, too bad, too sad.
You have no control here, John, except over yourself.
Even Loogy disdains your attempts at control.
Certainly Richard isn't a private in your army.
But your post is amusing and revealing.

No one berated Richard for anything. I simply asked a question. Apparently a
simple question ****ed off you and Harry.

Tough.


"A few of us are trying to keep some sanity here, but it's definitely an
uphill battle."
-- John Herring, earlier today.

Herring doesn't seem to want to try very hard, eh?