In case anyone cares...

otisptoadwater wrote:

VL, no one here has any interest in what you have posted and the thread reflects that. Crawl back under your rock and find some place else to be a troll. Otherwise I'm encouraging everyone to ignore you; that's more attention than you deserve.

Fine, I think i'm getting the message now, but I'll have you know that I only took precious time away from my vacation and came here because more than a few people PM'd urging me to weigh in on this subject...And CG wasn't one of them...

#stayclassypeople

Vice Lord wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote:

VL, no one here has any interest in what you have posted and the thread reflects that. Crawl back under your rock and find some place else to be a troll. Otherwise I'm encouraging everyone to ignore you; that's more attention than you deserve.

Fine, I think i'm getting the message now, but I'll have you know that I only took precious time away from my vacation and came here because more than a few people PM'd urging me to weigh in on this subject...And CG wasn't one of them...

#stayclassypeople

Brown eyes = full up

Vice Lord wrote: Fine, I think i'm getting the message now, but I'll have you know that I only took precious time away from my vacation and came here because more than a few people PM'd urging me to weigh in on this subject...And CG wasn't one of them...

#stayclassypeople

I'm surprised you haven't yet been selected to arbitrate this legal matter since your impartiality is unquestioned.



:rofllol

jmc wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

jmc wrote: I could post the "contract". I will wait hoping they get an agreement.

Who's side are you on?

Not yours, simple contract dispute, it never should have escalated.
The contract is clear, I will post it if there is no resolution.

Do you have a deadline in mind jmc? Without a stated date on which that will occur if no agreement is reached this really is more of a paper tiger than it is an incentive to resolve the matter, isn't it?

Public opinion only goes so far. I want this to be resolved by the parties, if talks break down. I will most likely post the agreement without any personal info.
I hope this is not driven by one cheap lawyer that is making a few bucks, this should get settled, hopefully soon.
I will decide when the time may be right. Hopefully never.

My hope for a resolution fades with each day rather than grows jmc. The longer the two sites remain up and operational, the less necessary to repair the rend it becomes. Very soon what you will have is consistent visitors to one or the other and wholly separate identities for the two sites, much like the situation that used to exist between this site and Pinecam.

PrintSmith wrote: My hope for a resolution fades with each day rather than grows jmc. The longer the two sites remain up and operational, the less necessary to repair the rend it becomes. Very soon what you will have is consistent visitors to one or the other and wholly separate identities for the two sites, much like the situation that used to exist between this site and Pinecam.

Lets just hope reason prevails

Just FYI:

I was able to post on 285bound.com without getting approval.

I'm used to finding the core issues in a contract dispute pretty fast but have had a dickens of a time getting a handle on exactly what this "chick fight" is about.
Common sense suggests that since the dispute seems to have evolved since 285bound participants were redirected to this site, there is a disputed issue of fact about whether the new name of the site was approved (it doesn't have the word "bound" in it, SC said she had approval for the name but possibly that statement is argued at the other end) and/or whether it had been agreed that the supporting advertisers on the "old" site would be transferred to this one (it seems unclear whether there was agreement that the old site would die when the new one was initiated).
How these issues could be resolved by a posting of the agreement is a little unclear because once again, common sense suggests to me that there was undocumented dialogue between the chicks that might not be consistent with the contract or envisioned in its terms. Otherwise, both chicks would just be following the text of their contract, but instead the invisible chick-fight clause is being hashed out between counsel.
Generally these disputes are resolved by both parties agreeing that the attorney fees outweigh the benefits of continuing the dispute -- so that SC will probably end up paying X to CG more than she thinks she should be paying in order to transfer the site with its new name, keep the advertisers and croak the old site, while CG will end up receiving less than she thinks is owed to cease its operations.
I agree it would have been best for both sites and the community, if these issues had been ironed out in advance ... but if you asked both chicks, they probably would each say that they thought they had been (that common sense thing again: nobody sets out to intentionally have a dispute).
Lawyers would starve if not for chick fights like this, but good attorneys will point out the advantages of getting along and going along, before a lot of fees are spent on either side. My fingers are crossed that after mediating their dispute, X $$ will be OK if not great for both chicks, considering we should be talking about handfuls and not hundreds of thousands of them.
This is BuyersAgent btw, technicians are working to restore my sign-on name.

The Solution:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqVlAV9bQ7A98NQ-OnbS5uFSHAgtcoSr6UgTCJi5tHuOVHjxyR