One Soul Thrust still claiming to have been pirated

One Soul Thrust, the unknown band whose manager Cameron Tilbury used advertisements to claim they'd achieved "Pirate Platinum status" has scrubbed their twitter feed of mention of the debacle. They still have a blog up yammering about their fictional downloads.

We've recently found out that our debut cd "1ST" has gone beyond platinum status!! While this is cause for SERIOUS celebration,yes indeed, its extremely bittersweet since almost all of these "sales" weren't sales. It was illegal downloads

As anyone following the band or their manager knows, the above simply isn't true. No one downloaded One Soul Thrust. Their manager, through incompetence or deliberate deception, made the claim based upon dodgy advertisements and nothing more. He didn't even verify the files were available online. This can be said with confidence because if he HAD tried to download the files to verify the authenticity of the ads, he'd have learned the files did not exist.

Despite this, One Soul thrust feels compelled to opine on their fictional victimization by pirates who don't exist:

Downloading music illegally is wrong. It's theft; no different than stealing off the racks at HMV. It hurts ALOT of people.

You know what else hurts people One Soul Thrust? Accusing innocent people of theft, which is exactly what you and your manger have done. I would venture to guess that accusing an innocent person of stealing from you does more harm than downloading an MP3 off a pirate web site.

On a final note, cashboxcanada.ca still has a link to the debunked claims of piracy on their web site's front page. It says a lot about cashboxcanada.ca's lack of integrity that they're still promoting an article that's been ripped to shreds and shown to be based upon bad data. Are they lazy and incompetent, or do they simply not care if piracy claims are true or not?

Regardless, I'll use the exact same standard of evidence employed to support their article to do some research of my own. By their own standard of evidence the following MUST be a real, heavily traded video:

"Cashboxcanada.ca shareholder meeting child sacrafice to Pan"

Shocking! Human sacrifices to a pagan deity! I wonder if the artists associated with this degenerate outfit know about this? Remember folks, the claim that Cashboxcanada.ca engages in human sacrifice at shareholder meetings is supported by just as much evidence as the claim that One Soul Thrust was the victim of piracy in the first few months of 2011.

Cameron Tilbury and Salem Jones The Bareback Gift Giver

Whoa Nellie! What have we here:

Cameron Tilbury and Salem Jones The Bareback Gift Giver

THAT'S a weird title. According to LimeTorrent it's just as popular as One Soul Thrust's debut album. Can anyone translate that movie title for me?

Cameron Tilbury only needed a month to destroy One Soul Thrust

It turns out One Soul Thrust, the band that has been humiliated online by the incompetence and dishonesty of Cameron Tilbury only signed with him in February of 2011.

20 February 2011
One Soul Thrust Unveils New Management

Rock band One Soul Thrust has just signed a management deal with Cameron Tilbury Publicity in the United Kingdom.

...

"We were introduced to Cameron through Nashville vocal coach Judy Rodman," says One Soul Thrust's lead singer/songwriter Salem Jones. "He started getting our music out to international radio and doing our publicity. but he was also talking to booking agents, promoters and other people. We soon realized that he was doing a lot of what we wanted in a manager. Since our focus is international and our producer is based in Europe, we wanted an international manager. It just seemed like a good fit. We simply love C."

One Soul Thrust is fronted by lead vocalist/songwriter Salem Jones. Add drummer Todd Pretty, guitarist Jag Mollerup, bassist Trent Morley, and you have the core members of what one US journalist called "one of Canada's best-kept secrets."

...

Cameron Tilbury is a native of Ancaster, Ontario, Canada and a former Canadian radio announcer/writer (820 CHAM, KX96, Q107, CHFI). He has worked at advertising agencies in Nottingham, Peterborough, Maidstone and London in the UK. Cameron Tilbury Publicity was founded in 2010 in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire--about 85 miles north of London--and is currently handling international radio promo and publicity for some of North America's best up-and-coming talent.

For information: info@onesoulthrust.com, cameron@camerontilburypublicity.com

By the first week of April, 2011, you couldn't look up information on the band without getting results about One Soul Thrust's manager feeding them bad information. In a little over a month, he turned them into an Internet joke.

Around April 3 and 4, the band and the manager posted some statements in their defense, but by April 8, the relevant posts on Tilbury's site were gone. Apparently he thought better of continuing to claim 100,000 pirate downloads when there were really none. Instead of admitting his mistake, he's decided to delete his comments and hope everyone just forgets he screwed up and was an ass about it. Given the short attention span of the Internet that strategy might actually work. Unless of course people keep linking to articles about this incident using his name and the band's name. Unless he admits his mistake and eats some humble pie, the odds are good his incompetence will continue to be one of the top things people learn about when they look him up online.

George Takei auditions for the role of Spiderman

There's the old D&D joke that Sean Connery reached "Epic" level in the 1990's and "stopped leveling." This is usually supported by photos showing how little he has aged in the last few decades.

Clearly, George Takei got the "Epic Level" rule book so he could keep leveling, even after achieving Epic Status.

In programming terms:
GeorgeTakei = Epic +1;

Every few months:
GeorgeTakei ++;




All joking aside, letting him retool the show into a comedic vehicle could work nicely. It might even, dare I say, save a failing production!

Cameron Tilbury, a lying SOB?

Until a few weeks ago, Cameron Tilbury'S main claim to fame was being a lackluster music manager and a somewhat psychotic looking Gordon Ramsay look-a-like. Now he's becoming known as a "special needs" individual who can't tell an advertisement from actual search results.

In my recent post Cameron Tilbury vs One Soul Thrust, I outlined how Cameron Tilbury used advertisements that auto-populated with your search results to claim that the debut album of the band One Soul Thrust had been downloaded about 100,000 times. If you actually try to download any of those files you learn something interesting. They don't exist. There are no copies of One Soul Thrust's album available on any illicit file sharing sites.

Cameron Tilbury's piracy claims are not true.

I wondered if he was deliberately lying or just an incompetent moron, incapable of telling the difference between and advertisement and actual search results. Was he also desperately trying to collect on his million pound Yahoo Lottery prize while feverishly corresponding with Nigerian prices desperate to get their money out of the country, giving him an eight figure cut in the process?

Tilbury's recent response to this mess has convinced me he is deliberately lying. I won't do the scumbag Cameron Tilbury the service of linking to his site. Instead I'll link to The Mad Hatter's response to Cameron Tilbury's dishonesty. I highly recommend reading it. The Mad Hatter's article, like my earlier one, uses absurd search criteria to demonstrate the idiocy and nonsensical nature of Cameron Tilbury's claims.

This is Cameron's money quote:

Sure enough, it would appear that not only are the downloads on pirate sites illegal, but their numbers are pretty shady too.

At no point does he admit that his piracy claims are fraudulent. He just weasels out and says the numbers my be off a bit. His excuse isn't completely off base. There's a substantial difference between ZERO downloads, which is what One Soul Thrust has experienced and the 1000,000 downloads Cameron Tilbury claims. That would fall under the criteria of "their numbers are pretty shady too." By refusing to admit that there are no actual incidents of One Soul Thrust being pirated he is engaging in what can be termed "deception by omission." Specifically he's leaving out the critical point that his claims are complete balderdash.

I would advise anyone thinking of doing business with Cameron Tilbury to seriously reconsider associating with him. If his handling of this debacle is any indication, then stretching the truth or even flat out lying are part of his business toolkit. It may seem like a good thing to have a dishonest bastard on your side, but lying bastards have a tendency to turn on you. Do you REALLY want to be in a contract dispute with someone as apparently dishonest as Cameron Tilbury?

If you have an existing relationship with Cameron Tilbury, get out as fast as you can, unless you like knowing that you can never trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

Where will Tilbury go from here? I suspect he'll try to cast this debate as a general piracy issue, distancing himself from his debunked claims. Instead of addressing the falsified nature of his 100,000 downloads number, he'll steer the conversation away from his specific incompetence and dishonesty towards a general attack on piracy. Anyone who calls him out on continuing to lie about the One Soul Touch piracy numbers will be lumped in with anyone who advocates piracy.

Cameron Tilbury vs One Soul Thrust

Cameron Tilbury is the manager for a band named "One Soul Thrust", and I feel sorry for the band.

In April of 2011, Tilbury broke the news that One Soul Thrust's debut album had been downloaded illegally over 100,000 times. A small band was being decimated by piracy. They'd gone Pirate-Platinum despite being an obscure band whose one youtube video had less than 80 views. I have videos of my toddler online that have more views than that.

The claim that a band with no real Internet presence could have racked up 100,000 illegal downloads was a red flag to a number of people. After some due diligence it turned out that the claims of One Soul Thrust having 100,000 illegal downloads were complete and bull. Cameron Tilbury, the man claiming there have been 100,000 illegal downloads has released his "evidence", which consists of a screen shot of an advertisement. TorrentFreak details the story in their article CRIA Watches Massive Music Piracy Crisis Devastate Unknown Band. Specifically, the ad is for LimeTorrents, a site that uses your search terms to make up fictional torrents with massive download rates in order to get you to click on the link.

The article One Soul Thrust – Who Is Lying To Them reveals that the album isn't even on Gnutella.

Tilbury however hasn't admitted his mistake,. Far from it. He's defending his position on the Balanced Copyright For Canada Facebook wall.

He's even being a jackass about it. For example, Trent Morley pointed out that Tilbury was responding to requests for supporting evidence with name calling Tilbury wrote:

Cameron Tilbury: So are you Trent. I've substantiated our claims to real journalists, not silly little bloggers who hide behind cute names. Nice loyalty on your part, I have to say. Class.

All anyone has had to do is contact me directly. The only ones who ha...ve done that are legit journalists and CRIS. I will not condutct this the way you kids want to play. Grow up."

If that's the case then it should be fairly simple for Tilbury to provide the same evidence to bloggers. Based on the Google results for the band's name bloggers are the primary people writing about this anyway. Deliberately excluding the people who are providing the most information on the issue only guarantees their version will dominate the conversation.

The fact-checking articles I've linked above make it pretty clear that no such torrent actually exists. The question becomes not one of if the piracy is occurring, it's not, but one of motive. Is Cameron Tilbury malevolent and trying to use this to get press attention or is he merely incompetent? He's clearly failed the band in his efforts to promote them. Is this an attempt to excuse his failure to get the band more paying gigs? Is he actually foolish enough to think no one would research his claims? Is he deliberately trying to make a fool of himself online to promote the band?

Tilbury's response on his web site is vacuous to say the least. He never admits that the download figures were based on bad information. He seems downright offended that anyone is even asking him for evidence. In the end his post devolves into an anti-piracy rant, never mentioning the white elephant in the room: The Piracy he's claiming happened to One Soul Thrust did not happen.

It's pretty clear One Soul Thrust needs a new manager. He's technologically incompetent and his management of this debacle is proving a complete inability to understand the relevance of the Internet in marketing the band. There are a lot of graceful ways he could have handled this and benefited his client but they all entail admitting he was wrong. A bigger man could do that. Cameron Tilbury however, does not appear to be a big enough man to admit a mistake.

Now, just for fun, here are some other torrent search results that claim far more downloads than are feasible. Keep in mind, none of these files actually exist, but the images below constitute the same level of evidence that Tilbury provided to TorrentFreak to support his claims of piracy. His screen shots showed download counts similar to the ones in the screen shots below. He appears to have gotten his 100,000 number by totaling the results. This means if the information Cameron Tilbury has released about One Soul Thrust is proof of massive piracy, then Cameron Tilbury is a piracy-platinum blue movie star.

Cameron Tilbury Dealing with constipation audio book

Cameron Tilbury Gay Sex Tape

Cameron Tilbury on the Nixon Tapes

Cameron Tilbury Murder Conviction read in court

To the best of my knowledge, Cameron Tilbury has never starred in a gay sex movie, written a book about constipation or been convicted of murder, but his own standard of evidence, screen shots from dodgy torrent search sites, would suggest otherwise.

I doubt he ever shagged Chris Crocker either: Cameron Tilbury caught in bed with Chris Crocker

Amber Benson and Anthony Stewart Head singing

I have no words. Go in to about 3:45 to see something that can never be unseen.

Why people laugh at Creationists Part II

Why do people laugh at Creationists Part 1

A cute video to start the week

Who is youtube.com/user/StaticOff ?

All my writing about StaticOff has been the result of a series of messages I received from the youtube.com user StaticOff. The abusive, hostile messages that sparked my blogging about Staticoff came from that account. These were not e-mail messages, but "General Messages" sent through the Youtube service. This includes the message I quoted on April 16.

The first comment to that April 16 post came from a blogger using the name Shalom. When you strip out the verbal abuse you get a single salient point.

The blogger account Shalom is claiming that the most recent Youtube message did NOT come from Shalom Wertsberger, the inventor of StaticOff.

If we assume the Blogger account is genuine then either the Youtube account is itself a fake, or the account is being used without the authorization of Shalom Wertsberger. This brings into question the authenticity of the original abusive messages I received on Mar 14, 2008, Mar 18, 2008, Mar 19, 2008 and Apr 16, 2008.

The blogger account offers only an automated e-mail responder as "Proof" of its authenticity. All this proves is access to the staticoff.com mail server. It does not prove Shalom Wertsberger is behind the blogger account.

We're left with limited options.

• Some or all of the Youtube comments could be fakes
• The blogger account could be fake, but created by someone with access to the staticoff.com mail server.
• There could be multiple people using the Youtube account and they aren't keeping each other in the loop on what they're doing.

I would encourage anyone participating in Staticoff's $500 video contest to seriously consider how this contest would be impacted if the youtube.com user StaticOff is indeed a fake account.

If the StaticOff Youtube AND Shalom Blogger accounts are genuine and written entirely by Shalom Wertsberger, then the comment to my April 16 blog post would constitute a lie, a denial of what he had already written.

My interactions with people claiming to represent StaticOff have resulted in me receiving nothing but a string of verbal abuse. I've not benefited from this exchange in any way. I doubt any of this will influence anyone's decision to purchase or not purchase the StatifOff product.

If the blogger account Shalom is to be believed, everyone involved is tired of these exchanges. In the interest of putting this to bed I offer the following:

If I have made any factually inaccurate statements about StaticOff or those responsible for the product in any way, I apologize. Such errors were made without malice or intent to harm. According to the youtube.com user StaticOff my original Youtube comment about StaticOff was in error. I have posted a retraction to Youtube as a reply to the Youtube user StaticOff.

It has been claimed that at least one of the messages I've received from the StaticOff Youtube account were not from Shalom Wertsberger. If this is the case then Shalom Wertsberger needs to find out who is actually behind the Youtube account and why they're using it to send abusive messages in his name.

Given the doubts recently raised regarding the authenticity of the Shalom Blogger account and the Youtube StaticOff account, I am forced to conclude that someone somewhere is lying to me. This means I have no accurate data about the mind set or communication style of the REAL Shalom Wertsberger. I have only comments from a person or persons claiming to be him.

Any comments I've made about Shalom Wertsberger and StaticOff have been my own opinion, based upon messages I've received. If those messages were faked, then someone somewhere is trying to make him look unstable and abusive. I recommend Shalom Wertsberger look into who is really behind the StaticOff Youtube account.

If Shalom Wertsberger is indeed the creator of the StaticOff youtube account and someone else is using that account to send fake messages in his name, then he has my deepest sympathy. I wrote under the impression that the communications I received were genuine. If these messages were in fact faked then I apologize for any inaccurate impressions I formed and stated about Shalom Wertsberger.

My sincere hope is that this will be the end of my exchanges with anyone involved with StaticOff or Shalom Wertsberger. If Mr Wertsberger does indeed learn who has been using the Youtube StaticOff account to claim to be him, then I encourage him to let me know, so I can add that detail to this Blog.

God's speed Shalom Wertsberger.

Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha‑olam, ha‑gomel lahayavim tovot sheg'malani kol tov.

Amen. Mi sheg'malkha kol tov hu yigmalkha kol tov. Selah.

Sent a message to StaticOff's inventor

I just used Youtube's message feature to sent StaticOff's inventor a copy of the "Open Letter" I wrote in response to his latest fountain of paranoia.

Hopefully this will be that last I hear of him.

I'm reminded of my wife's advice about interacting with people on the Internet. "Don't talk to the crazies" she told me. If only I'd listened.

StaticOff's inventor is now blaming me for all the negative feedback he's getting on the Internet

Due to a lot of major changes in my life lately, I've had minimal contact with my computer and my blog for the last two weeks. This morning I sat down and skimmed my e-mail to find I'd received notice of yet another youtube comment:

From: StaticOff
Sent: April 16, 2008
Subject: Blogs
Message:
It has been brought to our attention that you may be attempting to write to blogs using other bloggers names under different sign-ins in an attempt to discredit them and create the impression they are using the blogging world to attack you. If this is true I would suggest you not only cease doing this but also remove these fictitious blog entries otherwise we will look at legal actions that are available to us.
Thank You.

For the record, I have no idea what Shalom Wertsberger, the inventor of StaticOff, is talking about. He's placed his product on the Internet and appears to be attributing all the negative feedback he gets to me.

Here is my open letter to Shalom Wertsberger:

I have a newborn child in the house and a full time job. I do not have the time or the interest in you or your product to dedicate to attacking you. The last word I'd written about StaticOff was a March 31, 2008 post on my blog where I asked people to post their experiences with StaticOff. It received no constructive replies.

I don't know what blogs, "different sign-ins" or attempts to attack me you are referring to. From what you describe it sounds like someone is attacking me on your behalf. I'd like to remind you that there are a number of teenagers competing for a $500 prize to make the best "StaticOff" video. I find it more likely that one of them decided to rise to your defense. It's also entirely possible that people who happen to use names or logins similar to those of your bloggers are in fact responding.

You claim that someone is trying to discredit me and yet you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's me. To be honest if I were capable of such devious tactics I'd have gone into politics or corporate management. You clearly have some sort of persecution complex and I really don't want to be on the receiving end of your guile every time someone says something you don't like about your precious invention.

I'd exhausted my interest in you and your product in March of 2008. I don't know who is trying to attack me, nor do I really care. This is the Internet and I'm used to trolls and juvenile twits making rude comments. Kindly stop contacting me every time someone says something about StaticOff that didn't come from your marketing department.

Seeking StaticOff Reviews

Has anyone actually used the StaticOff?

It's a wall switch replacement. After a series of unpleasant exchanges with the StaticOff inventor, I find myself wondering if the product actually works. I have no proof either way, having never used one myself.

If you've used the StaticOff, please post your review, positive or negative, as a comment to this post or e-mail me at staticoff @ onlineconfessional dot com

StaticOff, again

Anyone reading my blog the last few days will know that there's been a few exchanges between myself and the inventor of StaticOff. I've now made the following Youtube comment:

halleyscomet March 21, 2008
I stand corrected. According to the user "StaticOff" the product will prevent an actual shock. I still think installing a bunch of custom light switch plates in your home is overkill, but if that's what you want to do about static electricity you're welcome to do so.

Hopefully, this will assuage Shalom Wertsberger. He clearly wasn't satisfied with "correcting" me with technical details about his product, but insisted upon getting me to acknowledge that, having never actually USED the StaticOff, I could not say with authority that it didn't work.

This started when I posted a Youtube comment that was based upon a misinterpretation of the commercial he'd posted. He, instead of realizing it was a simple error on my part, reacted as if I were some sort of psychopath out to destroy his business.

Shalom Wertsberger continued his hostile, aggressive tone throughout the subsequent exchanges, going so far as to equate an error about his product to lodging false accusations of child molestation.

I made a simple error. I thought the StaticOff was nothing more than a grounded metal plate. If Shalom Wertsberger has approached me in a friendly tone and explained the product's features in a calm manner, I'd have either deleted my Youtube comment or posted an apology. It could have been resolved in a fairly level headed manner.

Maybe he's been a lawyer too long and is just used to all human interaction being a contest of wills, a battle to the end. Even in his March 21, 2008 post to this blog he refuses to acknowledge that phrases like:

Your comment is 100.00% wrong, ahs(sic) nothing to do with reality, and I believe shows extremely poor judgment: You set up your mind with hardly a clue as to the facts.

Are a poor way to initiate any kind of communication.

Now, I could go though his last contact and write a detailed response but there really isn't much point. He's only going to respond with more hostility and anger. He thinks having invented the StaticOff gives some sort of moral high ground against anyone who criticizes it.

Despite the damning criticism of US Software Patents from actual experts and the fact that the patent office itself has responded by instituting changes to their procedures, despite the fact that the patent office is turning to peer review to reduce its use of internal "experts" Shalom Wertsberger still has an astounding level of confidence in the legitimacy of his software patents.

I wonder how Ron Popeil would react to a lone, apparently inaccurate, Youtube comment about one of his products?

If Shalom Wertsberger is going to continue advertising online, he really needs to brush up on his people skills and work on more level headed responses to Youtube comments. This time his ego and anger issues ticked off a computer Geek who decided to do a bit of research during lunch. Next time, he could start a flame war with someone like Tim Henson of Distorted View (NSFW) and God help him if he steps into that world.

StaticOff's inventor is still making a nuisance of himself

I got another youtube message from the man claiming to be StaticOff's inventor.

Mar 19, 2008, 08:52 AM

staticoff bad mouthing.
I note with great interest that not only have you spent a great deal of time on your own website attempting to, for want of a better term, bad mouth static off, but you have started to visit other blog sites etc where Staticoff is mentioned to post anti-staticoff comments. I find this rather destructive on your part and somewhat rather cowardly and childish, especially considering you have not tried the product. I would hope that from now on, you find some other way to handle what appears to be too much free time on your hands - maybe you could invent and patent some product.
Thank you.

It would appear that Shalom Wertsberger's brief moment of clarity in his revised Youtube post was in fact an aberration. While his tone is far more muted than in past messages, he's still hostile and condescending.

I can't help but wonder why he's so interested in my Blog and what I had to say about his product. If he'd simply ignored my Youtube comment, or posted an articulate and hostility free technical response, that would have been the end of it. He still hasn't realized that this isn't about StaticOff, but about his disproportionately emotional response.

I'm not going to try StaticOff for two reasons:

1. I don't need it. I get a static shock at home about two to three times a year. Some of the rooms in my home have pull chains on the lights as opposed to light switches, meaning there's no convenient location in those rooms to install StaticOff. I'm not going to buy a few dozen $10.00 light switch plates and get in the habit of touching them when I enter a room to avoid a mild annoyance.

2. Trying the product would require I buy it and I have no interest in giving money to someone who is arrogant, hostile and condescending towards me because I made a critical comment.

My favorite line from his message is, "maybe you could invent and patent some product."

Perhaps he missed the fact that I consider his invention to be a silly, frivolous waste of time and money. I can painlessly discharge static electricity by tapping my wedding band to a grounded surface. My favorite watch has a metal band. Tapping THAT against a grounded surface will painlessly discharge any built up static.

I will admit while Shalom Wertsberger's product may be silly, he does have a decent marketing machine. The commercials are of typical "late night infomercial" quality and they manage to be amusing without being painfully annoying. The video contest he's running is another clever bit of marketing. For $500 and a little time, he'll get a lot of free advertising. Then there's the placebo effect that will work to his advantage. A lot of people will get in the habit of touching the StaticOff and just assume it worked if they don't get zapped, even if they didn't have enough of a charge to shock them anyway.

No, I have every reason to think Shalom Wertsberger will make plenty of money off StaticOff, even if it's a useless, pointless product. Just look at your local "As Seen on TV" store if you need proof that people will spend good money of junk they don't really need.

I'd really like Mr. Wertsberger to calm down. He has an advertising budget while I have a little time and a blog with a PageRank of 1. A few wiseass remarks on the Internet won't hurt his business, but his hostility and aggression will.

I also suggest that if he wants to advertise online he should develop a thicker skin. The Internet can be harsh and if he continues to react with this much anger to his critics he'll have a heart attack before the year is out.

Is StaticOff using Black Hat SEO?

Link farms are an old technique for artificially inflating your web site's search engine ranking. The general idea is to toss up a relatively useless site that consists of nothing but links to other sites, most of whom pay for inclusion in the link farm. This technique is part of the "Black Hat Search Engine Optimization (SEO)" toolkit. Google is constantly refining it's algorithm to reduce or eliminate the impact of Black Hat SEO techniques.

More refined versions will have shoddy articles or a line or two of ad copy about a product. Think of these sites as the web equivalent of a channel dedicated to showing nothing but commercials.

When doing research about StaticOff I noticed that a lot of the sites lining to StaticOff looked a lot like such link farms, or look like sham sites created just to link to StaticOff.

For example:

http://everything-network.weebly.com/
http://everything-network.quotaless.com/
http://www.everything-network.co.nr/

This site contains a link to www.staticoff.com and image to the product. All three URLS have similar content and they link to each other. All three URLS are based on free web site services, so the person who started this particular link farm didn't even need to spend much money on it. The site "Content" is little more than links to other pages, most of them just jumbled together under general headings, without so much as a comment on WHY a particular link is supposedly worthwhile.

everything-network looks like a textbook example of a link farm, offering little to nothing beyond pages of links.

The inventor of StaticOff is mad at me and seems a bit unstable

Background

I was on Youtube, checking out a video a friend had sent me. One of the "related Videos" was a commercial for StaticOff Zapper Stopper. The StaticOff is a metal plate that you attach to your wall. You're supposed to touch the plate when you enter the room to discharge any static charge you've built up, thus avoiding a painful shock to friends and family. The commercial makes it look like the plate is grounded, which makes sense given it's intended function.

I found the product to be exceedingly silly for a few reasons.

It requires you to touch a specific object when you enter a room. This is inconvenient. I can see it making some sense if it's installed next to a light fixture, but even then, that only helps if you enter the room and happen to be flipping the light switch. My last apartment had pull chains in almost every room, so there was no location where it would make sense to install such a plate.

Static shocks aren't that hard to avoid. Your choice of clothing is a major factor. I tend to wear cotton around the house and will wear slippers or go barefoot. As a result I rarely get a static shock in the house, even during the Winter when the home is quite dry.

A properly humidified home will drastically reduce opportunities for static shocks.

Now, if you have shag carpeting throughout the house, wear rayon socks when walking about and wool sweaters with rayon undershirts, I can see the potential use of special plates installed throughout the house for you to discharge. That said, a good pair of house slippers and a few sweat shirts for wear in the home strikes me as a far more practical and economical method of avoiding static shock. This has the further advantage of leaving your walls intact.

It was with these, and many other thoughts, I made the following comment to the Youtube video:

Halleyscomet:

March 14, 2008

All this does is provide a grounded surface. You STILL get a static shock, it's just discharged on the plate instead of some other random object. Touching a metal doorknob will accomplish the same thing.

The Inventor Responds

I'd thought that was the end of it. Four days later I logged into my Youtube account again and found I had a couple messages from StaticOff.

Mar 14, 2008, 09:00 AM

Your comment regarding StaticOff

Sir,
Your comment is 100.00% wrong, ahs(sic) nothing to do with reality, and I believe shows extremely poor judgment: You set up your mind with hardly a clue as to the facts.

First, for the facts: Assuming you have sufficient technical background to understand the following:
The StaticOff touch points are electrodes are connected to an internal high impedance circuit that is in turn coupled to a non-linear device, which is connected to ground. The combination provide a slow, controlled discharge of the static charge. The RC constant of the circuit provides a very short but very important time delay, that allows you to get sufficiently close to the electrode without getting zapped, unless the charge level you carry exceeds 97 KV.
While this may happen, it is extremely rare -- it was the highest we were able to create and maintain on our bodies using a 150 KV source at extremely dry conditions. Normally, between 40% and 17% relative humidity a person does not collect more than 40-50 KV, and below 17% this number climbs to about 75-80 KV.
Therefore, when properly using the StaticOff device, YOU DO NOT GET A STATIC SHOCK. (using properly means touching the touch points, rather than the grounding screws).
The static shock you get when for example you touch a door knob, is due to the speed of discharge. The air ionizers and turns real fast from a good insulator to a good conducting path having but a few ohms. The charge of several thousand volts is discharge at a great rate, controlled by Ohm's law. While the amount of energy is small, the speed causes the pain.
When you use the StaticOff device, the speed of discharge is greatly reduced. The circuit characteristics allow you to get close and touch the electrode without a spark. Thus there is no static shock.

Now, I hope you will have the integrity to publicly admit your error outright, or buy the product, test it, and THEN admit your error.
And yes, I do take offence (sic) when someone who has no idea of the facts calls my invention and product a sham.

I wanted to give you a chance to correct things yourself, without humiliating you by exposing your ignorance. I expect that you will do so in the next 124 hours.
Regards
Shalom Wertsberger
Inventor, CEO, StaticOff

The first thing I noticed was the very hostile tone of the message. I'll admit, I was less than generous in my original post, but Shalom's response shows a considerable amount of aggression. It's been my experience that being polite generally gets better results. The overt hostility in phrases like "You set up your mind with hardly a clue as to the facts" leaves me disinterested in what he has to say. If he really had the facts on his side, would he REALLY be this hostile and angry in his reply?

The technical detail in his message certainly sounded plausible, at least to a layman such as myself. Touch the plate for a few seconds to painlessly discharge any built up static. Even if it works, I still consider it a silly, inconvenient waste of money, but I think the same of a lot of the products advertised on late night television.

It was the open hostility and challenges to my intelligence that caught my attention the most. I again wondered, if he really has the facts on his side, why would he bother stooping to such lowbrow tactics? I've dealt with some shady salesmen over the years and my gut reaction is to question the legitimacy of anyone using Shalom's tactics.

Another response from the Inventor

I'd like to point out that Shalom's 124 hour deadline gave me over 5 days to respond, but "Shalom Wertsberger" chose to post his next message in only 4:

Staticoff
Nobody's comet,

You have not found sufficient courage or decency to respond to my previous message inviting you to correct (or at least argue for) your ignorant and stupid remarks regarding my invention.

Since you failed to show basic integrity, I posted a comment, trying to correct the damage you caused by your irresponsible remark, and let the world set their opinion on you as the pompous, ignoramus and indecent coward that you are.
What a disgrace to Edmond Halley!
Shalom Wertsberger
Inventor and CEO, StaticOff.

Notice the greeting. My Youtube username is "HalleysComet" a reference to the stellar body named for Edmond Halley. Shalom Wertsberger starts off literally calling me a "nobody" because I hadn't responded to him quickly enough. That's hardly the way to get people to do what you want. Again, an issue that could have been resolved through patience and civility is instead approached with outright aggression. The entire message just berates me for not having responded to his post as quickly as he would have liked. He rants and raves and through the tone of his writing I can almost see him foaming at the mouth as he thinks of various ways to insult me.

More Youtube Posts

Finally he made a youtube post and I posted a reply:

March 18, 2008
StaticOff

Your comment is 100.00% wrong.
The StaticOff touchpoints are electrodes, connected to a high impedance circuit that includes a non-linear device. The combination provides a slow, controlled discharge of the static charge.
Therefore, YOU DO NOT GET A STATIC SHOCK USING STATICOFF.

I privately provided you with opportunity to withdraw your dumb comment. Since you did not, I hope everyone will see you what you are.

And yes, I took offense.

Shalom Wertsberger
Inventor, CEO, StaticOff

The above post was not actually posted as a reply to my comment, but as a reply to the video itself.

halleyscomet

No one is going to buy, or not buy, the "Static off" because of one lone Youtube comment, but your hostile tone in responding to my first post will leave people with the impression that you're trying to cover up a lack of facts with anger and aggression.

Why not just state where I'm supposedly wrong in a polite, educational tone? Why stoop to personal attacks? It hardly leaves the reader with confidence in you or your company. How do you respond if a customer wants to return a defective unit?

I start Digging

I can't help but wonder how such an angry, aggressive man runs his business and conducts himself with his family. He clearly thinks being a condescending jerk will get him his way. I decided to do a bit of digging.

I quickly found the StaticOff Blog. It only has a few posts, but it links to TheForecaster.net's review of the StaticOff The article contains two choice quotes from Wertsberger and his partner Shai Levite:

"It’s not snake oil," Wertsberger said. "It's a real solution and it works."

"It's just like any other medicine," added Levite, who used to suffer from static shock.

So, they're insisting it isn't snake oil and comparing a high tech grounded metal plate to medicine. Something tells me the folks over at The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe would join me in saying these quotes raise a few red flags.

One of the first Google hits for Shalom Wertsberger was a link to the "About Us" page on saltamar.com. The company name is Saltamar Innovations and their web site describes them as:

... a patent firm specializing in obtaining patent protection for the software and electronics industries. Our experience in those fields allows us to thoroughly understand the invention and provide you with the best possible protection.

The Patents

The Saltamar Innovations site mentions having 18 years of experience in software patents. Oddly, I didn't find any links on their site to patents that they'd filed. Patents DB however gave me a listing of patents filed by Saltamar Innovations.

Here are some examples:

Interacting augmented reality and virtual reality

A combination of interacting virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) system is provided where the system automatically switches from VR to AR when the user selected viewpoint coincides, within tolerance, with the observable AR viewpoint. The invention discloses an apparatus adapted to provide easy access and automatic switching between AR and VR, and method thehrefor.

Basically, this is a patent on situationally switching between virtual reality and a HUD. It was filed in 2001 and granted in 2006. Cyberpunk and computer gaming fans will notice that this boils down to a few drawings depicting an idea that's been around for at least a decade or two before the patent was filed. It even sounds suspiciously similar some of the technology described in the Sci-Fi classic Dune.

I wonder if anyone has patented "An immersion virtual reality (VR) environment attached to a life support system, allowing the subject to remain in VR indefinitely."

Call management via television

A telephone call management system and method are disclosed, allowing for call review where a voice mail message being recorded for a specific telephone may be played on a television associated therewith during the time it is being recorded. Optionally, the call may further be retrieved and rerouted to the user telephone responsive to a command entered via the television distribution gateway, and any call may be recorded responsive to commands entered via the gateway.

The patent was filed in Filed on 2002-07-02 and issued on 2007-10-02. The Jetsons depicted video phones decades before the filing. I wonder if the patent holder has tried to get royalties from the folks who make computer controlled conferencing and voice mail systems.

This is another patent that's not really an innovation. Playing a phone call through a Television and providing a video interface for managing and playing back phone calls are hardly innovative concepts, nor were they such in 2002.

While many of the patents were legitimately inventive, Saltamar Innovations filed a fair number of "inventions" that typify why so many developers want software patents abolished all together.

Return Volley from Shalom Wertsberger

An hour or two after I posted my response to his comment, Shalom Wertsberger made another Youtube post:

Your comment is 100.00% wrong.
The StaticOff touchpoints are electrodes, connected to a high impedance circuit that includes a non-linear device. The combination provides a slow, controlled discharge of the static charge.
Therefore, YOU DO NOT GET A STATIC SHOCK USING STATICOFF.

Shalom Wertsberger
Inventor, CEO, StaticOff

You'll notice that he rewrote his original response, taking into account my comments about his hostility. He also deleted his original post and my reply, removing the public evidence of his aggressive and condescending attitude. If I hadn't copied and pasted the comments into this Blog Post, they'd have vanished down the memory hole.

In the end, my brief encounter with the aggressive inventor of the StaticOff left me with the image of a hostile man in need of Anger Management therapy. I feel sorry for his family and business partners. I also find myself questioning the legitimacy of his product's claims, given the deranged attacks he used to defend the invention.

Interview From Hell

Ever want to slap someone you were interviewing?

Most of the violence is amusing in a cartoon sort of way, but I did find it a little disturbing that when you pour hot coffee in Kathy's lap, she kind of enjoys it... The fact that she appears to be a pyro isn't very reassuring either.

Dueling Covers, three versions of "Hurt"

Johnny Cash



Kermit the Frog



NIN, the original but as you can see, not the best.