In case anyone cares...

Photo-fish wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Whats intersting to me about this whole thing is how everybody else is all upset about it?
You posters are full grown adults acting like kids on a playground-Clique'ing up and fighting pretend battles...Oh the drama

BINGO!
Cool heads will prevail.

I think so too, and

I understand how this got all the hens cluck'in, but to see grown men like Walter P Newton, Print Smith, Otis P Toadwater and Nymisis getting their panties all in a wad over it is absurd.

They should all be staring in a Real Housewives of Bailey tv show.

Vice Lord wrote: Its just two people protecting thier own interests - I'm on CG's side because I think she has a contract, I think she's a fair, decent and honest person, and most of all, she's a dear friend...It doesn't mean I think SC is evil. Whats intersting to me about this whole thing is how everybody else is all upset about it?

You posters are full grown adults acting like kids on a playground-Clique'ing up and fighting pretend battles...Oh the drama!

#Halarious

The two most mature people here are SC and CG[/quote]
And who is it that is "clique'ing up" and choosing sides again VL? I'm not on anyone's "side" in the dispute because I don't know what the contract says. My opinion is that there should only be one site until the legal issue regarding the contract is settled so that whoever ends up being the person who interpreted the contract correctly to begin with has what the contract was drawn up to establish at the conclusion of the legal battle. What CG did in putting the other site back up was akin to splitting the couch in half while the lawyers were talking about who the couch belonged to. Regardless of what is decided at this point, what the contract talks about is no longer in existence as a result of that action. The contract talks about one message board, not two, which is what exists at this point in time. Even if the decision includes saddling one person with the entire cost of restoring the two halves into one whole, is the person who prevails really going to gain possession of the original property talked about in the contract?

SC has a contract too, or have you failed to take that into consideration in deciding whose "side" you are on and which clique you are going to hang out with? Granted, I'm not surprised that you are accusing others of the behavior you yourself are engaging in. That's pretty typical behavior for self absorbed individuals after all.

Printshit wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Its just two people protecting thier own interests - I'm on CG's side because I think she has a contract, I think she's a fair, decent and honest person, and most of all, she's a dear friend...It doesn't mean I think SC is evil. Whats intersting to me about this whole thing is how everybody else is all upset about it?

You posters are full grown adults acting like kids on a playground-Clique'ing up and fighting pretend battles...Oh the drama!

#Halarious

The two most mature people here are SC and CG

And who is it that is "clique'ing up" and choosing sides again VL? I'm not on anyone's "side" in the dispute because I don't know what the contract says. My opinion is that there should only be one site until the legal issue regarding the contract is settled so that whoever ends up being the person who interpreted the contract correctly to begin with has what the contract was drawn up to establish at the conclusion of the legal battle. What CG did in putting the other site back up was akin to splitting the couch in half while the lawyers were talking about who the couch belonged to. Regardless of what is decided at this point, what the contract talks about is no longer in existence as a result of that action. The contract talks about one message board, not two, which is what exists at this point in time. Even if the decision includes saddling one person with the entire cost of restoring the two halves into one whole, is the person who prevails really going to gain possession of the original property talked about in the contract?

SC has a contract too, or have you failed to take that into consideration in deciding whose "side" you are on and which clique you are going to hang out with? Granted, I'm not surprised that you are accusing others of the behavior you yourself are engaging in. That's pretty typical behavior for self absorbed individuals after all.

I have three calm rational posts in this thread urging patience and understanding with both sides, while you have numerious emotionaly charged rants, temper tantrums, and canniption fits against CG. I've been fighting with CG all year, but I guess she is like family to me cause I can't stand see'ing other people giving her a hard time. I didn't know that before this, and I don't abandon friends in their time of trouble, I don't care if they murder someone- Thats when they really need thier friends. Furthermore before this I veiwed CG as sort of just a nice sweet lady, but if you mess with her boy she comes out swingin..She's not gonna let anybody get one inch on her, she will protect her interests using everything at her disposal and I must say I am more than a little impressed with her street smarts. If she didn't "illegidly" seize the board, what leverage would she have in the negotiations?

My advice to you PS is to continue posting your messages wherever you want, but stop emotionaly speculating on this case, and stop bad mouthing CG because she can't defend herself without commenting on the litigation. Its not fair, and its not very manly either.

My humble opinion: I think SC signed a contract that she later regreted...It happens all the time in business, but business is business and contracts are binding. Look em over real good before you sign them friends.. Of course I could be wrong and making a business mistake doesn't make SC a bad person, but she can't undo the mistake at CG's expense, she's got to live with it

#LivenLearn

Vice Lord wrote:
My advice to you PS is to continue posting your messages wherever you want, but stop speculating on this case,

My opinion: I think SC signed a contract that she later regreted...It happens all the time in business, but business is business and contracts are binding. Look em over real good before you sign them friends

You really are a tool. You tell others not to speculate, then you speculate immediately after. Practice what you preach little man.

Rick wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:
My advice to you PS is to continue posting your messages wherever you want, but stop emotionaly speculating on this case,

My opinion: I think SC signed a contract that she later regreted...It happens all the time in business, but business is business and contracts are binding. Look em over real good before you sign them friends

You really are a tool. You tell others not to speculate, then you speculate immediately after. Practice what you preach little man.

I said "emotionaly speculate"

Look, that was the whole theme of my post...Everyone needs to just calm the Fu** up

Actually you said just speculating, which is what you have been doing on both boards......If SC says your speculation is wrong, then I am inclined to believe it is wrong. Why are you posting here anyway? Too quiet over on that "other" board?

Like others here, I am willing to let the legal system work and will support whoever is found to be in the right on this....but I am not willing to support the obvious theft of SC's business by CommunitiesBound before the case/issue is settled.

I remember when we had a rental property in Wash Park, one of our tenants just stopped making rent payments. That was an obvious breach of the lease/contract. After several months of promised payments that never materialized we sought legal recourse. What we learned is you cannot evict a tenant without going through the court system....Even though the house was ours, we did not have the right to take possession of that house or change the locks on it until the courts had evicted the tenant legally and that tenant had the opportunity to remove her belongings.

This is what I see in the SC/CG controversy. CG took the law into her own hands and evicted SC from her site without due process. That, I think, is going to place her in an untenable position in this, and may cost CommunitiesBound dearly, and that, I think, is a shame.

Actually I changed it before Rick made his post...after proof reading mine and while he was writing his...

Lets lighten up the subject a bit ...I was home 10 days ago and I bought my daughter a Grade A Toyger...Otherwise known as a Toy Tiger-It cost $8000...It looks just like a little Tiger! Its so cool..I'll post pictures of it when I get home...

CG is like a Toyger-Acts like a kitten until you mess with it's food

archer wrote: I remember when we had a rental property in Wash Park, one of our tenants .

I stopped right there Archer

#ApplesnOranges

Vice Lord wrote:

archer wrote: I remember when we had a rental property in Wash Park, one of our tenants .

I stopped right there Archer

#ApplesnOranges

Contract law applies VL......but I never expected you to read past the first phrase, you don't like reading anything that might make you reconsider your position. It's OK, you are who you are.