"The letter" regarding libel case

[MrShed]

Come on guys.

 

We all know apologies are just words.

 

The future of the site is at stake, and an apology is all that is required.

 

Should an apology be required? Absolutely, positively not. No way, no how.

 

But this fight could be CAGs last, and for the point of principle that is being fought, think of the thousands of people that could lose out.

 

Even if it does re-occur, then it will extend the lifespan of CAG, with little extra outlay. As the site is all about helping people, surely every extra day of security is another xx people helped, and therefore worth it?

[WendyB]

All I'm saying is that sometimes you should look at the bigger picture. As Mr Shed says, if I was going to be made bankrupt, yes I'd apologise, if it kept a roof over my families head etc. Principles don't pay bills, unfortunately. Life is full of compromises.

[MrShed]

What I would also say is that by defending the case, you may well give into the bullies for good.

 

A strategic move is better than a final suicidal show of strength and power.

 

This defence reminds me of the lads going "over the top" from the trenches in WWI....

[Bookworm]

I think that is a very easy view to take when there is no evidence to suggest this.

That YOU know of.

I think even the site team(of which you were once a part) will admit that this was a unique circumstance unlikely to happen again.

Can't speak for them. I know what I think.

Besides, principles are great. This site however cannot afford to have them, as is patently obvious.

Maybe this isn't about principles, but survival. What's obvious to you is not so glaringly obvious to others.

The decision to defend this claim is neither realistic, nor with its footing in the real world.

Neither is their decision to attack, but there it is nevertheless... The fact is that if it wasn't for this frivolous attack, noone would remember the protagonists except for a very small handful of oldies, most of them don't even know who the person behind the nick is, and none of them caring to find out. The only reason this is reappearing is because they won't let go, for reasons best known to themselves (no such thing as bad publicity? Who knows?).

 

IMO, there is no need (nor justification) for a lawsuit, or an apology. They have their little site in which they can do what they want as they want, we have this great site here, what is the point of this all?

 

All they have to do is: Nothing. It is really that simple. Maybe too simple for some.

[MrShed]

I disagree BW.

 

OK, perhaps I cannot speak for the site team, or that there would be issues with regards re-occurrance.

 

But it IS completely obvious that the site cannot afford this, as it has been explicitly stated by people in the position to say so, numerous occasions, since this began.

 

Their claim may be head in the clouds type stuff, but that is no excuse for the response to be equally self destructive.

[callumsgran]

That YOU know of.

Can't speak for them. I know what I think.

Maybe this isn't about principles, but survival. What's obvious to you is not so glaringly obvious to others.Neither is their decision to attack, but there it is nevertheless... The fact is that if it wasn't for this frivolous attack, noone would remember the protagonists except for a very small handful of oldies, most of them don't even know who the person behind the nick is, and none of them caring to find out. The only reason this is reappearing is because they won't let go, for reasons best known to themselves (no such thing as bad publicity? Who knows?).

 

IMO, there is no need (nor justification) for a lawsuit, or an apology. They have their little site in which they can do what they want as they want, we have this great site here, what is the point of this all?

 

All they have to do is: Nothing. It is really that simple. Maybe too simple for some.

Hear hear!!

Couldnt have put it better myself ;-)

[Alphageek]

Hi MrShed, you gave me some advice not long after I joined this site and I respect you knowledge and thank you for the help you have given me and countless others via the site.

 

I do, however, have to disagree with you on this matter. It seems fairly obvious that this particular set of circumstances will not reoccur but, as has already been said, what do we (we are the site) do the next time this happens.

 

If the site team are 100% convinced they are in the right, then to issue a sham apology would likely not placate Karnevil or discourage of our friends in the banking / DCA world from requesting similar "withdrawals".

 

The letter from them does seem to hold out an olive branch, but it is one we cannot grasp if we're in the right... for the long-term sake of the site.

[Castlebest]

gawd this is a pointless thread and is probably exactly why the letter was written.

 

I'm not and never have been site "Team" for my own reasons but from my limited knowledge of this problem it emanated from a small group of CAG op's who didn't agree with the way CAG is run so they set up their own site... good for them, if they can help people in a different way more power to them, unfortunately a small minority seem to have a vendetta which is stupid.

 

I happen to like this site and the way its run and am quite happy to help support it. Marc, Dave and the rest of the "team" are in a much better position to judge the best way forward as they have all of the information both recent and historical, for my own part I would never apologise if I was not in the wrong that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt... then again maybe we should redraft the template letters to include an apology.... 8)

 

pete

[WendyB]

good for them, if they can help people in a different way more power to them unfortunately a small minority seem to have a vendetta which is stupid.

pete

 

I am a member of both sites (although I am at present on moderation here and have had my pm facility removed, for reasons which have not yet been explained to me) and can honestly say I don't think there is a vendetta from anyone, as far as I know. Difference of opinion etc, but not vendetta. It is up to individuals what sites they wish to frequent etc, evryone has differing views on the way sites are run, what they like, what they don't like etc. I can honestly say that CAG is not censored on the other site, links are allowed to CAG also. However the same is not allowed in the other direction. In fact even the mention of the other site on this forum is moderated and any links posted lead to Disneyworld or Disneyland or somewhere equally irrelevant. I am not saying this to cause trouble, simply stating facts. There is a thread on the other site asking for donations to help the CAG libel case cause. It has not been banned or censored. I cannot post a link to it for obvious reasons.

 

If this post is moderated, then so be it. I apologise for posting about removal of my pm facilities but thought it might be noticed on this thread and elicit a response from admin, to whose attention UK Aviator bought it a couple of weeks ago.

[Castlebest]

It is up to individuals what sites they wish to frequent etc, evryone has differing views on the way sites are run, what they like, what they don't like etc.

 

Exactly... each to their own

[dave]

I am a member of both sites (although I am at present on moderation here and have had my pm facility removed, for reasons which have not yet been explained to me) and can honestly say I don't think there is a vendetta from anyone, as far as I know. Difference of opinion etc, but not vendetta. It is up to individuals what sites they wish to frequent etc, evryone has differing views on the way sites are run, what they like, what they don't like etc. I can honestly say that CAG is not censored on the other site, links are allowed to CAG also. However the same is not allowed in the other direction. In fact even the mention of the other site on this forum is moderated and any links posted lead to Disneyworld or Disneyland or somewhere equally irrelevant. I am not saying this to cause trouble, simply stating facts. There is a thread on the other site asking for donations to help the CAG libel case cause. It has not been banned or censored. I cannot post a link to it for obvious reasons.

 

If this post is moderated, then so be it. I apologise for posting about removal of my pm facilities but thought it might be noticed on this thread and elicit a response from admin, to whose attention UK Aviator bought it a couple of weeks ago.

 

It was I that censored the LB site here - this was due to people, and I don't know which people, PMing lots and lots of our members in an attempt to get them to another site. I had many messages forwarded to me from members who were concerned about the wording. In the forum rules it states that spamming is not allowed. I considered this to be spamming and took appropriate measures.

 

The complaints from people regarding their PMs stopped.

 

As far as I know, I am banned from the site that you mention, the last time I attempted to vist, my IP address was banned.

[citizenB]

Bank Fodder and the rest of the admin have my full support and I will continue to donate to this cause.

[MrShed]

gawd this is a pointless thread and is probably exactly why the letter was written.

 

 

I am disappointed that a senior member of the site feels that a discussion surrounding the future of the site, and the welfare of its members, is "pointless".

 

the fact remains that by pursuing this, regardless of the morality, the site is living above its means.

 

As an aside, I have been swamped with PMs stating PRIVATELY that they wholly agree with me, but are not willing to say so publicly for fear of vilification.

 

Perhaps says something about the state of the site that people do not feel they can publicly voice their views?

 

I think the decision to continue is arrogant, ideological, borders on a crusade, and most importantly IRRESPONSIBLE due to the financial position of the site.

[dave]

No-one will be vilified - I can assure you of that.

[MrShed]

Not me you need to assure...

[dave]

Well, seeing as they were private messages to you, I have no idea who it is I do need to assure. Please pass on my sentiments if you would.

 

If people think this is not a good idea, then please say so. You have my word that you will not be moderated for it.

[MrShed]

My point was not that the people should be individually told about this, merely that there CAN be at times(although, despite my misgivings, I am pleased that none of the current discussions on the topic have been moderated), a culture of moderation of posts for the sake of moderation.

 

Anyway, that really was an aside - as in public it seems a bit as if I am waging a one man fight!

[PGH7447]

While everybody here is involved in the in-fighting of whether to apologise or not, new users are waiting for help, remember when we were all new users:(

[MrShed]

That is the major concern, and my point is that there may not BE a forum to help new users if this carries on.

[dave]

It is my belief that that is the intention.

[MONX]

I posted this in the other libel case thread :

 

(quote) I was doing web searches to find sites similar to CAG in order to drum up support and stumbled upon the site that Amethyst presides over. At the time I was unaware that she was involved in that site and posted requesting support and donations if people felt like it.

 

As you can imagine at first they were telling me that I shouldnt donate as I didnt know the full story and that no one on that site would be donating (despite a member asking for the donation link).

 

They went on to ridicule me, correct my spelling and were basically very unfriendly.

 

When I established that Amethyst was the ex employee suing CAG I was a little more wary, despite initial welcome messages it became very hostile and I felt I had to leave.

 

Suffice it to say, having seen the solicitors letter and the transcripts on this thread I am still 100% behind the CAG. Complying to blackmail only opens you up to further threats and this is too important a resource to vunerable people (of which I counted myself amongst when I needed CAG support) to disappear due to the self importance of a disgruntled ex-employee. I have already donated and will again at the end of this month.

 

Go CAG!(quote)

 

I am less than thrilled to come on this thread and find people are actually playing into the hands of the members of the LB thread and its administrator!

 

I agree with PGH7447, we shouldnt be fighting umongst ourselves.

[tiglet]

No, we should fight them on the beaches instead

[MrShed]

To be honest, I am just going to start stating the same thing over and over again.

 

The CAG does not have the CHOICE whether to give in to the blackmail or not and just post the apology - they CANNOT AFFORD TO DO ANYTHING OTHER.

 

If they do not, and defend the claim, they are risking the site, and all the donations offered, on a fruitless cause.

[tiglet]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by fruitless.

 

I have already suggested that an apology is made if there have been any inaccuracies, but I personally would be damned before I would apologise for something I was not guilty of.

 

Anyway, you never know, someone may take on the case pro bono or the other person may decide to withdraw.

 

Never say die.

[Bookworm]

To be honest, I am just going to start stating the same thing over and over again.

 

The CAG does not have the CHOICE whether to give in to the blackmail or not and just post the apology - they CANNOT AFFORD TO DO ANYTHING OTHER.

 

If they do not, and defend the claim, they are risking the site, and all the donations offered, on a fruitless cause.

Oh, I don't know... There is always the fact that truth and justice may prevail in court and that CAG would win the case??? Surely, these donations are about at least giving them a chance to fight instead of having to bend over simply because someone has more money to throw about? Gosh, imagine the message THAT would be sending to the institutions CAGgers so successfully fights day in day out. Come along, banks, DCAs, retailers, threaten them will libel, true or not, doesn't matter, they'll cave.

 

As for the "swamping" of people agreeing privately "for fear of moderation", I call it the cowardice of people too afraid to stand up and be counted one way or another, and even possibly with their own agenda, and only too glad to have found a willing mouthpiece.