Comments on: … or maybe not.

By: j.

j. — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:13:46 +0000

Because of an excess of spam, I've closed comments on this post. If you have a comment to leave please find another, more recent post in the stitch v bitch category and leave your comment there.

By: Amie

Amie — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:11:35 +0000

I just wanted to let you know that I did indeed send a letter to Verizon about SAID individual. As well, I’m going to check out the information that ERIKA has posted. It looks like two other people sent in abuse emails, because in my research I found two logged with dates from only two weeks ago, when all this was happening.

By: Miriam

Miriam — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:39:25 +0000

You seem to have the most concise and neutral running commentary on the SnB drama. Thank you for that. I don’t know if it will help, but I was reading the “No Idle Hands: The Social History of American Knitting” by Anne Macdonald (ISBN: 0345362535 for the 1990 reprint, but it was originally published in the early 80′s) and she uses the term “Stitch and Bitch” as a name in common usage for knitting groups. I’m not certain of the exact decade she was referring to, but if you’re interested I can pull out the book again and give you page numbers, context, etc… Not sure if that has any bearing on whether they can trademark it for use as knitting groups when it was already in common usage decades before, but there it is.

By: Amie

Amie — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:22:49 +0000

Hers was worse than mine for sure. I laughed at mine. My instant reaction was, “That’s pathetic. Is that the best they could do? I’m a Jersey girl. I’ve seen and heard much worse.”

By: Erika

Erika — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:18:26 +0000

For those who received threatening emails – spoofing the reply-to address (so that it appears to have come from a domain like wearewatchingyou.com when it in fact came from a Verizon account) is a violation of the CAN-SPAM act of 2003 (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.htm). You can submit complaints online at http://www.ftc.gov and forward unwanted commercial email to the FTC at spam@uce.gov.

Also, the actual owners of the wearewatchingyou.com domain may be interested to know that someone is sending threatening emails which appear to have originated from their domain. The wearewatchingyou.com domain name is owned by:

Technical Contact:
Domain, Administrator operations@linkz.com
30369 Seven Mile Beach
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879

The contact info for eyesonyou.com is:

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
RareNames, WebReg
4200 Wisconsin Ave NW
Washington, DC 20016-2143
US
202-478-0990
202-478-0990 [fax]
brokerage@buydomains.com

It is very illegal (although surprisingly easy) to send threats to someone while disguised as someone else. If I owned either of those domain names, I would be pretty annoyed if someone sent threats pretending to come from my domain. Perhaps annoyed enough to sic my lawyers on the actual sender – if only to cover my backside.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:41:59 +0000

“they are watching and know who you are and where you live. OH will not hide you….”

Bex! That’s TERRIBLE! I know that has to be unnerving (even though it’s a hollow threat). I mean, it’s meant to inimidate you and implies (to me) a threat of violence, no? Auntie? What’s this mean legally “we know who you are and where you live”…how foolish and awful of them!

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:54:26 +0000

Thank you for continuing to chronicle this situation so well. I’m utterly amazed at the latest development in this ongoing saga. First, let me say that I completely sympathize with the affected SnB groups, and I don’t believe that SFSE really has a leg to stand on in regard to being the first to use the disputed phrase. However, up to this point, I was willing to cut SFSE a little slack. Regardless of who comes out on top in this tussle, SFSE is currently in possession of a registered trademark. While unfortunate and undoubtedly a bad business move on their part, I thought it was understandable that they were defending their trademark. After all, Debbie Stoller’s petition states that one of the reasons their trademark should be cancelled is due the fact that they hadn’t taken any action to protect it. Therefore, on their lawyers advice, they felt they were required to start doing so.

This letter changes everything. I’m no longer willing to cut SFSE any slack whatsoever. And I do believe Garvin has completely annihilated any chance of SFSE being able to redeem itself in the eyes of the knitting community. His malicious and unfounded remarks about Debbie Stoller have certainly and irrevocably left the worst possible impression on me.

By: j.

j. — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:44:07 +0000

It was comment #7 in the post “Shades of followup”. But it was phrased as a neutral message.

By: Carol

Carol — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:12:47 +0000

Scroll up in these comments to the link where a commenter saved it. There’s a link you can paste and then click on a saved image of the letter.

By: Kristin

Kristin — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 03:35:04 +0000

I went to go look at the letter again, and they’ve taken it down already. The link still works, but comes up as a blank page.