In case anyone cares...

archer wrote:

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.......

Its just a completely different contract, thats all...


And I wouldn't expect CG to back one inch off the contract- Thats just my ill informed, non emotional, rational thoughts on that. It's a contract, if you want to change anything you gotta have something to give and I can't think of anything SC has that CG wants? Accept perhapes a substantial amount of cash.

#Settlenow

Vice Lord wrote: I can't think of anything SC has that CG wants?
#Settlenow

How about a successful message board, with good advertisers, the good will SC built in the community, and satisfied posters that support the board, the advertisers, and the community.

archer wrote: .....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.

Trying to remember when you started hating me Archer..Was it when I made my wife stay on an hawaiin beach when a tidal Wave was coming in, live on Lionsbrook, or was it when I made lite of last Marches Forest Fire before I knew someone in the community had died in it?



Her she is @11:05

archer wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: I can't think of anything SC has that CG wants?
#Settlenow

How about a successful message board, with good advertisers, the good will SC built in the community, and satisfied posters that support the board, the advertisers, and the community.

Archer....

2 months ago the quality (of the majority) of the posters @285Bound resembled a toxic cell pool. The best thing that ever happened to 285Bound was the departure of those backwards thinking medieval women hating haters...Have fun with them here Archer! You could have never made them leave on their own if you begged them to go away...In youre wildest dreams you couldn't plan a way to get rid of those cancers, so this unintended consequence is great for 285Bound..I want deep discussions with educated people, not a bunch of sloganeers and the bumper sticker mentality types..And i'm sure i'm not the only one who feels this way?

I don't hate you VL.....and I have supported you when need be, when I thought you were unfairly attacked. But on this issue I think you are wrong.....not in picking CG over SC....but it thinking that what CG did was right without knowledge of what is in the contract. Making a move to shut SC out before this was legally decided was wrong, pure and simple, and it may come back to bite CommunitiesBound, Big Time.

What is sad is both sites lose in this scenario....

Alright then...I do remember you posted a "i'm done with you" post after one of those occurances...

Back to the proverbial subject now...

And as an impartial outside observer, or as close to one as anyone here....I'll throw one more thing out there- I think that If you make someone have to inforce a contract in court, and lose? SC would have to pay CG's inflated legal fee's, and I don't think you could get out of that debt in a bankrauptsy..

#SettleNow

I believe that goes for CG too....if she loses, and is found to have unlawfully taken another's business, not only might legal fees be assessed, but penalties too.

archer wrote: I believe that goes for CG too....if she loses, and is found to have unlawfully taken another's business, not only might legal fees be assessed, but penalties too.

No...CG has a contract and is having to inforce it in court. My point was that it might be better for one of the party's here to, not risk it. I don't agree with that Republican corporate friendly legistlation btw..It's just another example of the Right Wingers eroding another one of the Pillars of our Democracy...They right to have your day in court.

Now it's, "yeah, you have the right to have your day in court, but if you lose? Youre Fu**ed!
And they have better lawyers than you"

Some right..Thanks Republicans

archer wrote: I don't hate you VL.....and I have supported you when need be, when I thought you were unfairly attacked. But on this issue I think you are wrong.....not in picking CG over SC....but it thinking that what CG did was right without knowledge of what is in the contract. Making a move to shut SC out before this was legally decided was wrong, pure and simple, and it may come back to bite CommunitiesBound, Big Time.

What is sad is both sites lose in this scenario....

[/b]
VL....your perspective is somewhat micro in it's presentation......the MACRO view is this.....
it's DETRIMENTAL to both sites,BOTH sites will suffer for this LACK of transparency and BOTH
sites have lost credibility. JMO

You can NOT operate one entity as a duel concept......just as conjoint twins can NOT share
a heart (one WILL be diminished and unhealthy while the other will grow stronger and healthier)......leaving the anguished parents/surgeon the burden of CHOOSING who will live.....
and who will die......JMO

The REAL bottom line is this.......the process of "separating" the twins did NOT have to occur,
the decision/option was an ILL THOUGHT idea......(lack of forward thinking is basically the
REAL problem....JMO

Vice Lord wrote: No...CG has a contract and is having to inforce it in court.

No....CG does not have a contract.....CG and SC have a contract, and I'm betting there is no clause in it that says if CG doesn't like what SC is doing she can swoop in, steal the message board, lock out the rightful owner, and go into direct competition with one of her AFFILIATES. That kind of action probably requires a court decision....or arbitration, but not such stealthy thievery.