I am now in CG 's Q.

LadyJazzer wrote: As I have said over and over again, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not "taking sides."

If people are going to sling mud in public, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. I still prefer to let the parties deal with it privately instead of airing their laundry in public.

So, let the mudslinging continue...:

Bovine Scat. There is something called due process that we all have a right to and all should respect Jazzer, and CG didn't respect that right before she acted. She certainly had the right to pursue a legal remedy if she felt that SC had violated the contract that they had and then take the appropriate actions once that legal question was settled. That isn't what she chose to do, she chose to ignore the due process rights that SC has instead while the battle is fought. That is the sole reason the battle between them is public rather than private at this point in time. CG decided to take actions outside of the ones provided her in the terms of their contract.

I would be willing to bet you a brand new, bright, shiny Roosevelt fiat dime that the contract doesn't give CG the option to operate a competitive site in the same market while she pursues a remedy for any breech of the contract she has with SC. There is not a single question in my mind about that point without even seeing the contract in question. The remedy that CG is pursuing isn't one she is entitled to under the terms of the contract between herself and SC. If for no other reason that one right there should be sufficient for you to decide not to support what she has done while the dispute works its way through the legal process according to what the contract does contain. Whatever high ground CG may have had if SC had violated the contract was abandoned the second she herself went outside the boundaries of the contract. CG is in the wrong to be operating that site at this point in time even if she is right in her contention that SC violated their contract. It doesn't get any simpler than that and you know it.

The only way this gets settled is for CG to see that the remedies provided to her by the contract are the only ones available to her and cease any acknowledgement that the site she is operating outside the boundaries of the contract she signed even exists at all. This site, this one right here, is the only one that the contract pertains to. This is the site that was sold to SC as an affiliate of Communities Bound. Respect for the rule of law demands that the other site be ignored for the duration of the dispute. No matter how you slice it, the site CG is currently running isn't talked about in the contract she has with SC, only this site is covered by that contract.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: As I have said over and over again, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not "taking sides."

If people are going to sling mud in public, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. I still prefer to let the parties deal with it privately instead of airing their laundry in public.

So, let the mudslinging continue...:

Bovine Scat. There is something called due process that we all have a right to and all should respect Jazzer, and CG didn't respect that right before she acted. She certainly had the right to pursue a legal remedy if she felt that SC had violated the contract that they had and then take the appropriate actions once that legal question was settled. That isn't what she chose to do, she chose to ignore the due process rights that SC has instead while the battle is fought. That is the sole reason the battle between them is public rather than private at this point in time. CG decided to take actions outside of the ones provided her in the terms of their contract.

I would be willing to bet you a brand new, bright, shiny Roosevelt fiat dime that the contract doesn't give CG the option to operate a competitive site in the same market while she pursues a remedy for any breech of the contract she has with SC. There is not a single question in my mind about that point without even seeing the contract in question. The remedy that CG is pursuing isn't one she is entitled to under the terms of the contract between herself and SC. If for no other reason that one right there should be sufficient for you to decide not to support what she has done while the dispute works its way through the legal process according to what the contract does contain. Whatever high ground CG may have had if SC had violated the contract was abandoned the second she herself went outside the boundaries of the contract. CG is in the wrong to be operating that site at this point in time even if she is right in her contention that SC violated their contract. It doesn't get any simpler than that and you know it.

The only way this gets settled is for CG to see that the remedies provided to her by the contract are the only ones available to her and cease any acknowledgement that the site she is operating outside the boundaries of the contract she signed even exists at all. This site, this one right here, is the only one that the contract pertains to. This is the site that was sold to SC as an affiliate of Communities Bound. Respect for the rule of law demands that the other site be ignored for the duration of the dispute. No matter how you slice it, the site CG is currently running isn't talked about in the contract she has with SC, only this site is covered by that contract.

You are absolutely right....whether some like it or not.
It is laughable to here CG talk about integrity posting at the one place that shows she has none.
That site should be dark until this is settled legally. Instead.....she pursues Facebook, twitter, and youtube imposters which, in my mind, shows an intent of theft. (JMO)

I'm in for putting my money where my mouth is. I believe CG is wrong and that ill show with my pocket book. Anyone else?

MsMAM wrote: I'm in for putting my money where my mouth is. I believe CG is wrong and that ill show with my pocket book. Anyone else?

Thanks for the reminder. I think I am late on my rent.

MsMAM wrote: I'm in for putting my money where my mouth is. I believe CG is wrong and that ill show with my pocket book. Anyone else?

Yes.
SC, please PM me with a link to the details?
You know: in all that free time of yours. lol

HuffPo Q's and moderates comments, among other political websites. Here's how they explain what they are doing when you post:

"DUE TO THE POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS ARTICLE, YOUR COMMENT MAY TAKE LONGER TO APPEAR PUBLICLY."

MsMAM wrote: I believe CG is wrong

Why don't you tell us all what makes you believe that? Wrong meaning her and her lawyers are not intrepreting the contract correctly?

#HighlyDoubtful