- Joined
- Aug 18, 2000
- Messages
- 312
Gentlemen,
Time after time I have seen Bill *offer* (not grudgingly agree to) exchange, repair or refund the money for the slightest complaint. Whacked a rock? Bill offers a new knife. Son try to sculpt your cement porch? Bill offers a replacement. The noteable thing is these are not defective blades, these are incidents of carelessness or rotton luck. Not Bill's problems at all, but how many times has he stood up and put his own chin out to take the hit? Who gets the credit for good blades? Who gets the check when her husband dies and an unpaid for knife is auctioned? How long a list of honorable actions can we generate just from what we've seen?
So I slowly came to respect Bill and I consider him an honest man. Craig I don't know from a hot rock, so I scrolled through the past twenty days of GH forum to get the feel of things. Below is one of today's posts, with commentary tossed in.
================================
Craig:
"Stolen Pictures: As everybody knows, I borrowed pictures from Bills website (when there was no Gurkha House and when there was NO copywrite statement on his website) when my companys website was being constructed. That the under construction website was publically available is regrettable to me, and I apologized to Bill and removed the photo immediately."
Me:
"Borrowing" pictures to use for your own profit is called plagiarism and theft, copyright statement or not. If you wanted to test the page, any public domain gif would have worked. I assume that the "regrettable" part is that you were called on it? Had the website not attracted fire the pictures would still be there? Your statement implies it.
Still, you did the right thing to pull it down, if not in putting it up.
Craig:
"Plagiarized Information: What information have I plagiarized? Knocked-Off Models: I have always sought to produce models that were unique and previously unavailable."
Me:
Wait for it, here it comes below...
Craig:
"The reason for the similarity of many of our models is that until HI stopped doing business with TB, GH and HI knives were often made by some of the same bishwakarmas. The ONLY reason I started offering ONE model with a scrolled buttcap was because Bill no longer offers them, and because there was enough customer demand for them."
Me:
In other words, the coast was clear, a gigantic "ME TOO!" blossomed and suddenly you wanted to sell them. Okay, but see, those weren't "previously unavailable" models, were they? A self contradiction. Very damaging. And "similarity" doesn't describe what you say about them below...
Craig:
"Thats not stealing models if you ask anybody. Many of the original scrolled-buttcap khukuris that I offered in the recent past were in fact leftover HI khukuris (not "rejects" as anybody who bought one will attest to) that Bill didn't buy from
TB."
Me:
What rationalization! Try this one on Disney. "Many of the original Mickey Mouse frames that I offered were in fact leftover Disney art. . . The resulting lawsuit would bury most small governments. No, if they are leftovers you sell them as leftovers, having first alerted Bill to their existence and obtained permission from HI to sell them. Anything else is opportunistic and sneaky.
Also, another self contradiction, as thses models clearly *were* available. Very damaging.
Craig:
"I was doing TB and Lalit a favor by buying them. I had them grind off the HI logo on some, and on others, the HI logo remained. They were sold at our normal prices and guaranteed by us."
Me:
I assume that had TB and Lalit offered good product on time to the HI buyer, they wouldn't have had them left over. And what "favor" was this? Didn't you intend to profit? That isn't a favor, thats just business. Don't fob off a normal profit drive as philanthropism. And did you actually sell HI marked knives? This is an unbelievable admission. "Yes your Honor, I did sell another trademark but I wasn't plagiarizing, stealing or being deceptive, I just wanted to ride Bill's coattails, knowing that those knives had almost zero chance of being returned. . ."
Conclusions: I don't know and am not commenting on the comparative quality of either man's products. But from this one post I see that Craig, by his own admission, did several things which strike me as unethical. Following that he then apparently rationalized his own misbehaviour and found other avenues to scurry along, apparently taking advantage of another company's reputation for quality to help line his own pockets. Sorry, Craig, you lose. You may be a fine fellow and your knives, for all I know are dandy. But you stepped over the line between right and wrong. Regardless of what you do in future, your honor has been marred by your own actions and in your own words.
Stephen Hamilton
One final thought: I hope that all parties will be careful keep this dogfight local and not start trouble in Nepal. People's livelihoods depend on it and they don't need to be hurt.
Time after time I have seen Bill *offer* (not grudgingly agree to) exchange, repair or refund the money for the slightest complaint. Whacked a rock? Bill offers a new knife. Son try to sculpt your cement porch? Bill offers a replacement. The noteable thing is these are not defective blades, these are incidents of carelessness or rotton luck. Not Bill's problems at all, but how many times has he stood up and put his own chin out to take the hit? Who gets the credit for good blades? Who gets the check when her husband dies and an unpaid for knife is auctioned? How long a list of honorable actions can we generate just from what we've seen?
So I slowly came to respect Bill and I consider him an honest man. Craig I don't know from a hot rock, so I scrolled through the past twenty days of GH forum to get the feel of things. Below is one of today's posts, with commentary tossed in.
================================
Craig:
"Stolen Pictures: As everybody knows, I borrowed pictures from Bills website (when there was no Gurkha House and when there was NO copywrite statement on his website) when my companys website was being constructed. That the under construction website was publically available is regrettable to me, and I apologized to Bill and removed the photo immediately."
Me:
"Borrowing" pictures to use for your own profit is called plagiarism and theft, copyright statement or not. If you wanted to test the page, any public domain gif would have worked. I assume that the "regrettable" part is that you were called on it? Had the website not attracted fire the pictures would still be there? Your statement implies it.
Still, you did the right thing to pull it down, if not in putting it up.
Craig:
"Plagiarized Information: What information have I plagiarized? Knocked-Off Models: I have always sought to produce models that were unique and previously unavailable."
Me:
Wait for it, here it comes below...
Craig:
"The reason for the similarity of many of our models is that until HI stopped doing business with TB, GH and HI knives were often made by some of the same bishwakarmas. The ONLY reason I started offering ONE model with a scrolled buttcap was because Bill no longer offers them, and because there was enough customer demand for them."
Me:
In other words, the coast was clear, a gigantic "ME TOO!" blossomed and suddenly you wanted to sell them. Okay, but see, those weren't "previously unavailable" models, were they? A self contradiction. Very damaging. And "similarity" doesn't describe what you say about them below...
Craig:
"Thats not stealing models if you ask anybody. Many of the original scrolled-buttcap khukuris that I offered in the recent past were in fact leftover HI khukuris (not "rejects" as anybody who bought one will attest to) that Bill didn't buy from
TB."
Me:
What rationalization! Try this one on Disney. "Many of the original Mickey Mouse frames that I offered were in fact leftover Disney art. . . The resulting lawsuit would bury most small governments. No, if they are leftovers you sell them as leftovers, having first alerted Bill to their existence and obtained permission from HI to sell them. Anything else is opportunistic and sneaky.
Also, another self contradiction, as thses models clearly *were* available. Very damaging.
Craig:
"I was doing TB and Lalit a favor by buying them. I had them grind off the HI logo on some, and on others, the HI logo remained. They were sold at our normal prices and guaranteed by us."
Me:
I assume that had TB and Lalit offered good product on time to the HI buyer, they wouldn't have had them left over. And what "favor" was this? Didn't you intend to profit? That isn't a favor, thats just business. Don't fob off a normal profit drive as philanthropism. And did you actually sell HI marked knives? This is an unbelievable admission. "Yes your Honor, I did sell another trademark but I wasn't plagiarizing, stealing or being deceptive, I just wanted to ride Bill's coattails, knowing that those knives had almost zero chance of being returned. . ."
Conclusions: I don't know and am not commenting on the comparative quality of either man's products. But from this one post I see that Craig, by his own admission, did several things which strike me as unethical. Following that he then apparently rationalized his own misbehaviour and found other avenues to scurry along, apparently taking advantage of another company's reputation for quality to help line his own pockets. Sorry, Craig, you lose. You may be a fine fellow and your knives, for all I know are dandy. But you stepped over the line between right and wrong. Regardless of what you do in future, your honor has been marred by your own actions and in your own words.
Stephen Hamilton
One final thought: I hope that all parties will be careful keep this dogfight local and not start trouble in Nepal. People's livelihoods depend on it and they don't need to be hurt.
