"At first I was bothered by the dismal ending of the article, but since I'm personally receiving a lot of calls in response to it, I know that exciting things will soon be resulting for John."
Hmmm. How do you equate your receiving a lot of calls in response to the article as knowing exciting things will soon result for John Draper?
And wouldn't the calls you get, due to your association with the article and Mr. Draper, be biased toward the positive? I mean, how many people you know who call you up based on a mention of you or Draper in the article are going to say "why that was just terrible?"
I guess I'm suggesting your sample "rate and source" of congratula-tory calls or emails would tend to be rather narrow, and unlikely to reflect the average reader's response. What do you think the typical WSJ reader is going to think, not knowing him, about Mr. Draper? I would suggest that he comes off rather poorly in the article.
"Based on the results and response, I now think the article was perfectly written." Have you read the entire thread here? Just because there has been a "large response", doesn't mean it's a positive one. And I'm not sure what you mean by "results"--could you clarify that? I submit that at the very least, the article was not "perfectly written", that your perspective is probably at variance with the typical reader of the article, and that Captain Crunch, while famous (many would say infamous), may have been a "star" at one time, but that his reputation as a phreak/hacker and programmer is based on accomplishments from the past. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but he can be real bozo at times. And I know him quite well, over a very long period of time. To me, the WSJ could and should have covered some of his more positive aspects, like you mentioned (although I would have to debate you about proper money management, adequate hygiene, and keeping an apartment organized, let alone clean), but would also say that most of the troubles he has experienced he is primarily "responsible" for, even though he has been ripped off several times by unscrupulous individuals, who preyed on his social naivete and lack of interest in business basics. I just wish he would listen more and learn to apply the good advice others have given him for the last three decades and more about how to deal more appropriately with others and especially in business. It's actually kind of a tragic story, but IMHO, the WSJ profile was not as fair or balanced as it should have been. But it is up to Mr. Draper, in the years he has remaining, to do what is right by himself and with others. He still has that chance, but only if he can see that, gets wise to himself, and acts accordingly. I frankly think he could benefit from therapy. You are right about his being a true "original", if not unique. He's quite the complex character. I truly hope you are right, and that his "star" does shine again, but, being a pragmatist and somewhat pessimistic, based on his history over the last 20 years, I would have to conclude by saying that remains to be seen. I wish him and you all the luck it may require.
Christine Marie--aren't you the person mentioned in the article as working with Tolga Katas at en2go.com, where John Draper is noted as the CTO? What did you think of the WSJ article? And if you do occassionally clean Draper's apartment, what do you think of the reporter's comments about his apartment?
As far as Cap'n Crunch being a superstar, isn't that somewhat exaggerated? People like Woz, Jobs, and Gates, for example, are "superstars" in their industry, but can that really be said about Draper? Finally, what do you mean about the "Karma police" and the implication that Mr. Draper will rise again? How do you see that happening?
Slashdot Mirror
"At first I was bothered by the dismal ending of the article, but since I'm personally receiving a lot of calls in response to it, I know that exciting things will soon be resulting for John." Hmmm. How do you equate your receiving a lot of calls in response to the article as knowing exciting things will soon result for John Draper? And wouldn't the calls you get, due to your association with the article and Mr. Draper, be biased toward the positive? I mean, how many people you know who call you up based on a mention of you or Draper in the article are going to say "why that was just terrible?" I guess I'm suggesting your sample "rate and source" of congratula-tory calls or emails would tend to be rather narrow, and unlikely to reflect the average reader's response. What do you think the typical WSJ reader is going to think, not knowing him, about Mr. Draper? I would suggest that he comes off rather poorly in the article. "Based on the results and response, I now think the article was perfectly written." Have you read the entire thread here? Just because there has been a "large response", doesn't mean it's a positive one. And I'm not sure what you mean by "results"--could you clarify that? I submit that at the very least, the article was not "perfectly written", that your perspective is probably at variance with the typical reader of the article, and that Captain Crunch, while famous (many would say infamous), may have been a "star" at one time, but that his reputation as a phreak/hacker and programmer is based on accomplishments from the past. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but he can be real bozo at times. And I know him quite well, over a very long period of time. To me, the WSJ could and should have covered some of his more positive aspects, like you mentioned (although I would have to debate you about proper money management, adequate hygiene, and keeping an apartment organized, let alone clean), but would also say that most of the troubles he has experienced he is primarily "responsible" for, even though he has been ripped off several times by unscrupulous individuals, who preyed on his social naivete and lack of interest in business basics. I just wish he would listen more and learn to apply the good advice others have given him for the last three decades and more about how to deal more appropriately with others and especially in business. It's actually kind of a tragic story, but IMHO, the WSJ profile was not as fair or balanced as it should have been. But it is up to Mr. Draper, in the years he has remaining, to do what is right by himself and with others. He still has that chance, but only if he can see that, gets wise to himself, and acts accordingly. I frankly think he could benefit from therapy. You are right about his being a true "original", if not unique. He's quite the complex character. I truly hope you are right, and that his "star" does shine again, but, being a pragmatist and somewhat pessimistic, based on his history over the last 20 years, I would have to conclude by saying that remains to be seen. I wish him and you all the luck it may require.
Parkwoods Estates, I believe. Maybe just Parkwoods. It burned down during the big Oakland hills fire in the late 80's.
Christine Marie--aren't you the person mentioned in the article as working with Tolga Katas at en2go.com, where John Draper is noted as the CTO? What did you think of the WSJ article? And if you do occassionally clean Draper's apartment, what do you think of the reporter's comments about his apartment? As far as Cap'n Crunch being a superstar, isn't that somewhat exaggerated? People like Woz, Jobs, and Gates, for example, are "superstars" in their industry, but can that really be said about Draper? Finally, what do you mean about the "Karma police" and the implication that Mr. Draper will rise again? How do you see that happening?