Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Spam News

Spammer Bankrupted by Anti-Spammer Suits 475

www.sorehands.com writes "The well known spammer Scott ("Snotty Scotty") Richter has filed for bankruptcy protection. In a Denver Post article Richter claims to have less than $10 million in assets but more than $50 million in debts including the $49 million that Microsoft is seeking. Microsoft is not the only lawsuit that Richter is defending, as a law suit filed by anti-spammer Dan Balsam and being handled by anti-spam attorney Timothy Walton is still pending. Hopefully, Microsoft will have the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court dissolved so that they can stop Richter from spamming and gather more evidence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammer Bankrupted by Anti-Spammer Suits

Comments Filter:
  • by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:17PM (#12080429)
    If it was anybody else, he would fight on.
    • AOL are also well known to chase spammers into the ground, and now that the spammers know that big companies are onto them, they are changing their ways and using different methods

      SPIM (im spam), exploiting google via cloaking, SMS spam and phishing are some of the ways the current spammers are 'diversifying'
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:53PM (#12081124)
      No, it's because the bankruptcy laws are about to change next month. If he had waited, he might actually have to pay something.
    • He will survive. After he emerges from bankruptcy he will start a new company that delivers spam or does something similar. It's in his blood and I can't see the guy doing something else for a living.
      • It's worse than that - bankruptcy laws are designed to fairly allocate the debtor's remaining assets between creditors, and Chapter 11 is designed to allow debtors that are bankrupt to continue operating because they can generate enough money to pay back their creditors more than if you simply shut them down and sell off the chairs and file cabinets (as opposed to Chapter 7, where you do shut them down and divvy up the cash and other assets.)

        This means that as long as they're in Chapter 11, they'll be c

  • Go Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cerberus911 ( 834576 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:18PM (#12080438)
    This time microsoft deserves our support. It's time to go with the lesser of two evils :)
    • I've said it before and I'll say it again, MS are doing a good job at tracking down large scale spammers and hitting them where it counts.

      You just have to look at how little spam is directed at hotmail these days, to know that it is working.
    • by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:27PM (#12080628)
      A spammer up against a convicted monopolist corporation. What a funny way of labeling "lesser of two evils"

      • Re:Go Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {derehtrevilo}> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:31PM (#12080726) Journal
        especially when it's often holes in Windows that are exploited so send out the spam.
      • Re:Go Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by diamondsw ( 685967 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @04:09PM (#12081397)
        This is why we we HAVE situational ethics. Sure, Microsoft, on the whole, is worse than a spammer. However, in this case they are fighting on our side; i.e., against spam. Unless you're completely irrational, then yes, Microsoft is the lesser of the two evils here.
    • by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:27PM (#12080632) Homepage
      So does that mean that Microsoft is good today? And it made it on Slashdot??

      Record low temperatures reported in Hell!
    • Re:Go Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) *
      This time microsoft deserves our support. It's time to go with the lesser of two evils :)

      "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

      -- Jerry Garcia
    • Re:Go Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:48PM (#12081045)
      Perhaps all of the responses about the lesser of two evils still being evil are missing the point. There's nothing evil about shutting this clown down. It's a blow for our ability to constructively use the 'net when (rich!) loser scammers hawking V1@gra see it all come down in a stinking pile around them. Good riddance, and thanks, Bill, for using that army of retainer lawyers in this way.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:18PM (#12080447)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Richter

    Like it or not, he makes more money than most reading slashdot.
    • Link + (Score:2, Informative)

      by baudilus ( 665036 )
      here's the link, for all you lazy clickers

      Scotty2Hottie [wikipedia.org].

      If he's making so much money, why is he filing for bankruptcy? He's only got 25 employees and a monster bandwidth bill, but I still can't see him spending $15M a year (what he claims to make) on operating costs. A few mil for the bandwidth, some salaries, and a lease (plus other small costs). This guy is slick.

    • Its assumed that anyone filing for bankruptcy protection with $50 million in debt, probably makes more than me. ;)
    • So do the people who head organized crime.
    • Like it or not, he makes more money than most reading slashdot.

      My observation is that people who are not particularily intelligent, are good at lying through their teeth to appear friendly, and have no morals, make lots of money.

      And they all seem to be in Sales.
    • He makes money from doing something illegal. Drug dealers probably make more money than me, too, but that's not a good thing.

      Plus, as pointed out, at least I'm pretty sure that my money-making method (i.e. working at a so-called legitimate job) will sustain me through the rest of my life. His money-making method will get him sued into bankrupcy (case in point) and perhaps even thrown in jail.

      Yeah, I like my way better, too.
  • by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:18PM (#12080448)
    I had this warm, fuzzy feeling all day. I now know why!
  • by bblazer ( 757395 ) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:19PM (#12080466) Homepage Journal
    If this holds it may begin to show that the profits from spamming are just too risky, and others may not wish to try it. On the other hand, bankruptcy is often just a shield to protect assets. Maybe with a combination of civil and criminal action we will one day see a reduction in spam.
    • by Golgafrinchan ( 777313 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:26PM (#12080617)
      It would be nice, but I think it's unlikely.

      Tomorrow's spammer will be much more sophisticated, both technologically and when it comes to the law. Tomorrow's spammers will know the tricks around the CAN SPAM act and whatever else the governments of the world throw at them.

      Why? Because IF they are able to operate within the rules of the law, they can make money. People keep spamming because other people keep clicking on the ads. Spammers won't stop until people stop clicking on the ads!

      Think about the war on drugs. It'll never end until either the government gives up, or demand for drugs decreases substantially. Same thing here.

      • Think about the war on drugs.

        Now that's an entirely different animal. The reason why the war on drugs has not and will never end is that too many people profit from its continuation. And I don't mean the drug lords, I mean the police, special forces, their suppliers and everyone in the game. I mean, your cool anti-drug special force would be dissolved if the drug problem were solved, wouldn't it?

    • by nametaken ( 610866 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:32PM (#12080739)
      a combination of civil and criminal action

      I can see it now. They seize his mailing lists to contact everyone to join the class action lawsuit. A spam promising free money thats actually true!
  • by Mycroft_514 ( 701676 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:19PM (#12080467) Journal
    to keep him from declaring bankruptcy.
    • And what do you propose, exactly? In particular, what if it is the _person_ and not his company, that is declaring bankruptcy?

      If a person has no ability to pay their debts, and no forseeable point in time at which their circumstances could change to be able to repay the debt, holding the debt over their head for the rest of their lives is not at all far removed from slavery practices, however more civilized it might appear to be.

      It is unconscionable to hold any person to remain in debt for an unjustifi

  • That's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .l3gnaerif.> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:20PM (#12080485) Homepage
    Even when lawsuits are successfull, they just go bankrupt. Some may even be intelligent enough to hide some money for later...

    As long as stupid people buy their stupid crap, theyll continue. Lawsuits or not.
  • by Golgafrinchan ( 777313 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:22PM (#12080516)
    So... Microsoft is the good guy in this one?

    If you hear something, that's my head exploding.

    • So... Microsoft is the good guy in this one?

      In all seriousness, life isn't as black and white as Slashdotters or George Fucking Bush seem to think. A company can't be "evil" and more than a country can be "evil". "Good guys" and "bad guys" are vehicles to simplify movies and books, and the bible for the simple minded.
  • by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:22PM (#12080518) Journal
    This may be something that varies by state but are damages/etc. awarded from a lawsuit dischargeable under bankruptcy laws? I know my deadbeat dad tried (and failed) to get out of a court settlement over back child support years ago so in that case at least it wasn't allowed.

    Granted it's not like they can get much from him if he's legitimately broke, but I don't believe he can stop MS & others from collecting what the court awarded. The bankruptcy court will dispose of his assets and decide who gets what portions, but what's left he'll still owe once he's out of bankruptcy protection.

    IANAL so if I'm mistaken someone please correct me, I'd like to know.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:30PM (#12080708)

      Granted it's not like they can get much from him if he's legitimately broke, but I don't believe he can stop MS & others from collecting what the court awarded. The bankruptcy court will dispose of his assets and decide who gets what portions, but what's left he'll still owe once he's out of bankruptcy protection.



      Back child support isn't dischargeable in bankruptcy because it is a non-dischargeable debt. There aren't many of those. Curiously, the only debts that aren't presently dischargeable in bankruptcy are fines imposed for crimes, child support awards and...guess what...student loans. You can thank the GOP for the latter in 1995. That's right. Punitive damages awarded for mass torts are dischargeable in Chapter 11 for the big boys, but if Billy or Sally can't repay their student loans, tough titty. Now they want to do the same with other kinds of consumer debt. Bastards.



      This looks like a liquidation (Chapter 7) not a debt restructuring (Chapter 13) so yeah, while a lot of his assets are going to go bye-bye, he won't owe bupkiss after the discharge order goes through. That's what bankruptcy is for. Your credit smells to high heaven for 7 years and for those 7 years further protection isn't available, but anything discharged is wiped clean.



      I'm seeing some pretty mean-spirited comments on bankruptcy on this board. I assume these people work for credit-card companies. Sorry, but weaking bankruptcy protections to get one spammer is a pretty bad trade-off. He's bankrupt. That should be enough.

      • by hawk ( 1151 )
        I am an attorney, but this is not legal advise. If you need that, get it from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

        Nearly everything this AC wrote is just plain nonsense.

        Curiously, the only debts that aren't presently dischargeable in bankruptcy are fines imposed for crimes, child support awards and...guess what...student loans

        No. Those aren't the only ones. Certain taxes (time dependent), fraud, luxury goods or large borrowing within 60 days of filing (presumptively), omitted debts, willfully
  • I finally found something that Microsoft did and I really liked.

    Now the target is to prevent him rising from the ashes and restart spamming again.
  • Which way will this saga play out? Will it turn out that Spammer Boy is a hydra, and that his demise, like killing of the head of a drug cartel, will spawn a series of replacements who, in true criminal fashion would start killing each other but because they're spammers they'll annoy each other comparing the size of the IMMENSE ORGASMS ORDER TODAY?

    Or will he be more like an evil Obi Won, and if you strike him down he will become more powerful than you can ever image thanks to FREE HERBAL VIAGRA JUST $39.99 A PILL?

    Or will he suffer the True Death as the sunlight strikes him just as the stake enters his heart while his body collaspes into a pile of dust while he screams out MY NAME IS UBENTO FROM NIGERIA AND DURING THE US INVASION OF IRAQ I WAS GIVEN A MILLION DOLLARS THAT YOU CAN HELP ME EXPORT WITH A LOAN OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS?

    Or will this post suffer the lameness filter from Slashdot? Only time will tell.
  • Money eh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by baudilus ( 665036 )
    He claimed his company operated legally and made $15 million a year sending 15 million e-mail messages a day.

    So if I send one email every day for a year, someone will pay me a dollar? w00t!
  • by Godman ( 767682 )
    See, this is kind of stupid. We shouldn't be suing for money, we should be puttin this guy in JAIL!

    If he files for bankruptcy, the government pays his debts, etc..., what's to stop him from doing it again? and again? and again? You get the point. As long as he's free, he's going to be doing this. The only way to stop it is to put him in jail.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      If he files for bankruptcy, the government pays his debts, etc..., what's to stop him from doing it again? and again? and again? You get the point. As long as he's free, he's going to be doing this. The only way to stop it is to put him in jail.

      If it's any comfort, you're not entitled to bankruptcy protections for losses incurred due to your own criminal and/or actionable activity, such as fraud. Even if all his spamming was legal, there's documented instances of him lying to his own customers. Not that
    • by pqdave ( 470411 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:35PM (#12080806)
      Government does NOT pay his debts. Depending on which chapeter he files under (I didn't RTFA) either most of his assets will be liquidated, and his creditors get some of what they are owed, or he gets a court-ordered payment plan in exchange for no collection activity as long as he fulfils that plan.
  • by Fox_1 ( 128616 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:24PM (#12080583)
    I've worked with parts of Microsoft before and strangely enough this article reinforces what I saw, they aren't all bad - oh I know they are the evil empire and everything - but you can't get that much money and geekness together without some good happening. Besides when it comes down to evilness I'll take the big MS over millions of dirty little spammers everyday, at least their damage to my computer is more bad program design then malicious malware.
    • The problem being that a lot of the spam on the internet is due to their bad program design and poor coding. So you're picking one side of the same evil, MS suing doesn't help the problem, them fixing their exploitable machines so they stop turning into spam relays is a starting point. Then fixing their applications would be a nice next move. It does amuse me that HTML email, which MS basically MADE popular ... is now being ... toned down. As in, Outlook2k3 not loading images by default. Perhaps if the
  • No Mercy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DimGeo ( 694000 )
    I hate when companies make people bancrupt with lawsiuts. I really love to see MS make that poor shmuck bancrupt. Yes, I'm a hypocrite.
  • by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:26PM (#12080610)
    "It's the legal fees that are battering the company," said OptInRealBig.com lawyer Steven Richter, father of Scott Richter. He said the company faces lawsuits from Microsoft and other parties in Colorado, California and Utah. "OptIn is profitable but for these lawsuits."

    Wow, the kettle doesn't fall far from the black pot tree now does it?
  • Dissent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by m50d ( 797211 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:26PM (#12080625) Homepage Journal
    I know many here will be cheering, after all it's an evil spammer, but does this strike anyone else as being scary? Yes he's broken laws and done bad things, we suppose, but does he really deserve to owe $49 million? And how much of that is from legal costs rather than straight fines? If he did wrong and has been convicted he deserves to be punished, but the legal system as it stands can bankrupt an innocent all too easily.
    • Re:Dissent (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) *
      "Yes he's broken laws and done bad things, we suppose, but does he really deserve to owe $49 million?"

      That's the question the courts are there to answer. They say "yes."

      After all, how much as MSFT spent to try to protect their own networks from such messages?

      "If he did wrong and has been convicted he deserves to be punished, but the legal system as it stands can bankrupt an innocent all too easily."

      You're no longer an "innocent" if you've been proven guilty already.
    • Re:Dissent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @05:43PM (#12082711) Homepage Journal
      but does he really deserve to owe $49 million?

      Absolutely. By any estimate, that's a fraction of the damage he has done to the public at large.
  • The 5-year-old company, which employed 25 people last year and had 350 clients, will continue to operate under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, he said.
    It's not quite time to sing the ding-dong [tripod.com] song yet.
  • by ites ( 600337 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:31PM (#12080724) Journal
    Although it's tempting to cheer as Mr Richter is beaten down by the weight of Microsoft's legal muscle, I have severe misgivings about this.

    First, corporations should not be attempting to lay down the law. The legality or not of spamming is for the State to decide, and there should be criminal prosecution of those who break the law.

    When corporations can turn the law to their advantage, they will inevitably attack the real threats to their business - competitors.

    Second, criminalising spam (or bankrupting spammers through civil suits) will only drive spammers to work outside the reach of the US courts. While US spammers can reasonably be expected to evolve over time to collaborate with their host society, foreign spammers don't have any incentive to (e.g.) refuse to promote child snuff porn.

    Lastly, spam is a problem that will, eventually, go away by itself. Yes, I actually think this. There will come a time when people say, "of course you could send a million unwanted emails, but who would be so stupid?"

    Spam is unsolvable by technical means, and it's unsolvable by legal suits, civil or criminal. It will disappear when the Internet has matured to the point where business is more than a one-shot affair, and tit-for-tat becomes the rule, not the exception.

    So when the school bully picks on someone you don't like, don't cheer. Next time it'll be you.

    • With IPv6, however, it's really easy to block all mail coming from any specific country.

      I dunno about you, but I'd feel less bothered about blocking all mail from Uzbekistan than from the USA. And if the ISPs in the country have a problem with it, they can lobby their government to criminalize spam, too. Personally, I'd rather operate universal blacklisting with explicit whitelisting, but there's just too many ISP's in the USA, with new ones popping up daily, for that to work.

      Spam is unsolvable by techni
    • by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @04:07PM (#12081372) Journal
      First, corporations should not be attempting to lay down the law. The legality or not of spamming is for the State to decide, and there should be criminal prosecution of those who break the law.

      Who do you trust to legislate proper behavior on the internet? Tom DeLay? The UN?

      This jackass has done material harm to Microsoft, by damaging the value of their webmail service. This is exactly the time and place for a civil dispute. Dunno why you're saying that Microsoft is a bully picking on someone else. Here, Microsoft is a bully beating up someone that tried to steal Microsoft's lunch money. That same jackass has stolen our lunch money in the past. Cheer 'till you lose your voice.

      I don't know why you say that Spam is unsolvable by technical means. It's absolutely solvable by technical means, but those technical means will take huge amounts of time and money.
      • Who do you trust to legislate proper behavior on the internet?

        The same institutions I trust to legislate proper behaviour everywhere else. True, my trust in the current crop of legislators is pretty low. But still higher than my trust in large corporations.

        Spam solvable? OK, solve it. Whatever technique you develop, people will find a way around it. Forever. If you can eliminate spam as it exists today, new varieties will appear that bypass whatever guards you place. Look at the "win an ipod" sign
        • I'd explain why but the margin is too small to hold my notes...

          Ahahaha. Now I've spilled single-malt scotch all over my tweed jacket.

          Spam solvable? OK, solve it. Whatever technique you develop, people will find a way around it. Forever.

          Notice how I didn't say quickly or cheaply. I said the opposite. SPF & web-of-trust would eliminate spam. Even if SPF hits no new roadblocks, it will be a costly and slow process. The issue isn't that there are no technical solutions.

          I do not like watching Microsoft (or a

  • by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:35PM (#12080786)
    Dear Sir/Madam

    My name is Scott Richter, but you can call me Snotty Scotty. My company has come under attack from an evil empire and I was forced to flee for my life. I have $10 million in assets I wish to hide. If you let me sign over these assets to you I will be forever in your debt. I will glady split half of this sum with you once I have fled to the tropical paradise of Canada.

    If you agree please send a registered letter with your name, address, e-mail address, social security number and bank routing number to:

    Prisoner #773849

    San Quentin Prison

    San Quentin, CA 94964

    Please hurry, they let me out to the exercise yard soon, and I feel my other assets will soon be raided.

  • by joey_knisch ( 804995 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:35PM (#12080794)

    Dear Scott Richter,

    My name is Dr Ahmed Abdalla director and board member, Transparency International, Kenya. I got your email address from the web directory so I decided to contact you.

    We are interested in diverting some funds currently floating in the suspense account of the federal pay office to your account as soon as possible.

    Source of the funds are:

    During the Arap Moi's government, government's officials awarded contracts to their own companies, these contracts were grossly over invoiced. Now the present government set up contract review panel to settle those owed outstanding amount. My colleagues and I have identified a huge amount totaling US$870m (Eight hundred and seventy million us dollars) overseas.

    We would want US$43.8m (Forty three million Eight Hundred Thousand) dollars out this money oversea transferred to your account because we are not eligible to operate foreign account, and I have been mandated to search for a partner abroad. We really want this transfer made as soon as possible before the government, who have started refunding money from Moi's foreign accounts track this money. We will be offering 20% for your assistance. If you would want to proceed with this transaction please reply with your name and phone number and if you do not accept my offer please treat with utmost confidentiality.

    Best Regards,
    Dr Ahmed Abdall
  • filing means he's let off the excess debt? he still loses his $10 million in assets? he has to sell his mansion etc.?
  • Maverick justice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Golgafrinchan ( 777313 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:44PM (#12080967)
    While I'm not going to complain about a spamming company's bankruptcy, I'm a little bothered by how this was handled. From the article:

    Microsoft officials called the filing a victory. "Microsoft and the state of New York said we would drive him into bankruptcy, and together we have," said Aaron Kornblum, Microsoft's Internet safety enforcement attorney. "The kind of spam Mr. Richter was sending was not only annoying, it was illegal, and the law sets out penalties for this kind of illegal activity."

    It sounds like Microsoft took the law into its own hands. They saw that the government couldn't/wouldn't do anything about him, so MS blasted him with lawsuits until he succumbed.

    Isn't this the kind of justice most of us Slashdotters don't like? After all, many of us have complained about the RIAA suing someone, and that person has to settle out of court because they can't afford to fight. Isn't this the same thing?

    • by StikyPad ( 445176 )
      After all, many of us have complained about the RIAA suing someone, and that person has to settle out of court because they can't afford to fight. Isn't this the same thing?

      It's not at all the same thing. The difference is: The one guy has been found guilty in the court of public opinion. And the court of public opinion is never, ever wrong. So who cares if this guy's financially ruined? We, the public, have all the facts, and God is on our side.
  • yeah right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:50PM (#12081069) Homepage
    ...this guy, bankrupt as he claims to be, has more than I will ever make many times over.

    Crouching lawsuit, hidden assets
  • Not a good result (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:51PM (#12081100)

    "It's the legal fees that are battering the company," said OptInRealBig.com lawyer Steven Richter

    Spammer or no, I don't like the principle that if you run out of money to defend yourself, you lose.

    • Um, did you catch the name of that lawyer???

      Steven Richter is Scotty Richter's father.

      So if the legal fees are "battering the company", one of two things is happening. Either Scotty's father is ripping him off royally (possible, after all, the son's a crook too). Or, Scotty's father is charging tons of legal fees as a way of protecting Scotty's ill-gotten wealth.
  • by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @04:04PM (#12081314) Homepage Journal
    .. unfortunately, their mail asking for it was rejected by the spam filter.
  • by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @04:06PM (#12081348)
    Are you in debt?!?

    GE_T OU*T OF DEB?T FAST

    with our fool.proof pla-n

    banana charlie sprocket
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @04:56PM (#12082106) Journal

    Dear Sir,

    I am a consultant operating in West Africa named Scott Richter. I am being persued by evil slashdotters who do not like my wonderful products and messages. For this reason I cannot move money in my name through normal banking channels. I think the only way to succeed is to seek help from a foreigner....
  • by mabu ( 178417 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @05:37PM (#12082624)
    I have always contended that the notion that spammers make tons of money is overblown hype. The fact that this company's attorney is the father of the owner is a classic example. If they were really making money they wouldn't be hiring the CEO's dad to do this stuff. And if the CEO's dad is milking the company into bankruptcy, then there is some kind of poetic justice and consistency in the family that almost brings a tear to my eye.

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_

Working...