Status_203 - 9:20 am on Apr 14, 2010 (gmt 0)
Apparently they're suprised by how "vituperative" the response to Cpedia has been.
They appear to believe they're doing no wrong. Even pointing out that they cite sources. Of course, even a generic scraper site generally provides a direct link back. In cpedia you need to go through another intermediate cpedia page first!
Ironically enough, they conclude by implying (as far as I can tell) people simply aren't listening enough and that's why they don't get it. Interesting approach to PR. Don't think they'll be getting whitelisted for my sites (which contain many of the unique nuggets on certain topics that they are supposedly trying to dredge out).