Re: ouch..

["N. Max Pierson" <nmaxpierson () gmail com>]

Check out the White Papar referenced ....

http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/pdfs/Why_Cisco_Not_Juniper.pdf

It has Cisco's usual White Paper format and their copyright stamped on the
bottom which is also dates "9/11". If it's not Cisco or one of it's
affiliates, I would expect them to be contacting their so called "Marketing"
folks anytime now.

If this really is Cisco .... i'm with Owen and expect a presidential bid
announcement any second now ....

Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the
site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some
feedback :)

-
Max

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:

> One:
> > Looks like some random person registered this one.  The domain and ip do
> not
> > look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo
> all
> > over the site.
>
> Another:
> > Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy.  My first thought was a
> > disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee.  Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in
> > its cartoon strips all those years.  Payback???
>
> I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and
> who
> has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it.
> Cisco
> marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what
> ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy
> and
> rackspace.
> Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our
> competitors
> networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will
> the
> pages be hosted.
>
>
> --
>  ++ytti