"The letter" regarding libel case

[jansus]

Still don't know what LB stands for:confused:

 

 

It does not matter

 

LB did not start the legal action.

[SOD'EM]

It does not matter

 

LB did not start the legal action.

 

 

It may matter if I require help or indeed offer help there.

[jansus]

True but I can not post the name you will get directed to disney land.

 

And that is not sarcasam

[Bookworm]

Bookworm

I do find your comments sometimes have a very sarcastic tone.

Well done. :grin:

[jansus]

is that it ? is that all you have to say?

 

Well at least I know I was not imagining it then.

 

Thanks for the acknowledgemnt any way and I hope now you will put people right when they blame the whole of LB for this sorry state of affairs.

[WendyB]

As as already been pointed out, the solicitor's letter is not from LB. It is from an individual. The case has not been bought by LB against CAG.

 

The constant referrals to this are, in my opinion, making things worse and inflaming the situtation, and are having the effect of furthering the "us and them" mentality. There are ppeople who use both sites, who should not be made to feel that they have to choose one or the other or be made to feel like traitors to CAG if they use LB, and vice versa.

Edited October 11, 2008 by HSBCrusher

[Bookworm]

But I didn't say the action was brought by LB, did I? :-?

 

(just double checked, nope, definitely didn't. )

 

Nevos asked:

Anyone tell me what is LB? and where to find the bones of the dispute cheers.

so I 1) linked him to the relevant thread, 2) told him what LB was, IMO.

 

If you decide to interpret this as me saying that the solicitors' letter was from LB, then I suggest that it is your issue, not mine and you really need to read posts properly before commenting.

 

Jansus: You have your opinion, I have mine. What's to discuss? You don't like my style of posting or what I have to say? That's ok, I care little for your opinion in the matter. Tip: There's a button on your user CP where you can "ignore" anyone you like. I used it to great effect when one of our most unpleasant but now thankfully removed users was posting some of his most inane ramblings and I was asked not to raise to his poorly worded baits. Feel free to do the same with my nick if my posting style upsets you so. It's all the same to me. ;-)

 

Before either of you tries to take the moral high ground, let me remind you that I personally think that it is all much ado about nothing and that the planned action is unreasonable, ill thought out and of no benefit to anyone that I can see. Common sense dictates that in a case like this, the aggressors are the ones who should withdraw. Maybe common sense is all that is needed in this instance? ;-)

[BankFodder]

Thhis whole forum is for people to air their views about the libel actiojn - not to slate another site.

 

We have never tolerated the attacking of any other site on the CAG before and I don't intend to let it start now.

 

Please don't do it.

[BankFodder]

As as already been pointed out, the solicitor's letter is not from LB. It is from an individual. The case has not been bought by LB against CAG.

 

The constant referrals to this are, in my opinion, making things worse and inflaming the situtation, and are having the effect of furthering the "us and them" mentality. There are ppeople who use both sites, who should not be made to feel that they have to choose one or the other or be made to feel like traitors to CAG if they use LB, and vice versa.

 

I think that this is probably correct.

[jansus]

yes you are right . Just two comments close together #

 

and you inferred it inthis post

 

 

Now THAT makes sense, in fact it is a BRILLIANT idea, and one I believe was expressed by BF on another post by this sentence (I paraphrase): "Why don't they just leave us alone?" All they have to do is go away, all it takes is one letter from the solicitors saying: "we have been instructed not to carry on with this action", and voila! LB can go and do their own thing, CAG can carry on without this worry on their head, CAGgers for whom this site is a lifeline can carry on safe in the knowledge that their haven is safe for a while longer... It's a win-win situation all round, surely?

 

 

My mistake

 

I will be more careful in future .

 

And I will use the ignore button thanks for that.

 

Moral high ground ? Will have to think about that .

 

And when this is all over I hope you remember my posts yesterday that I deleted and take then in the spirit they were intended.

[jansus]

Thhis whole forum is for people to air their views about the libel actiojn - not to slate another site.

 

We have never tolerated the attacking of any other site on the CAG before and I don't intend to let it start now.

 

Please don't do it.

 

 

That is what I tried to do

 

And it was just assumed I was taking sides

 

I WAS NOT

[Bookworm]

My apologies for that, nothing was "inferred" at all, "they" referred to the instigator of the legal action and her backer, and that if she dropped the action, she could then concentrate on her role on LB, but I can see it could have been misconstrued. I am happy to put things straight in the matter.

 

"When this is all over?" Can't be too early for me.

[foolishgirl]

I've supported CAG from the beginning of my membership & will continue to do so, but come on guys & gals, this bickering is getting nobody anywhere, it's taking up the valuable time of some very experienced & respected forum members whose efforts should be directed to those who need help & quite frankly it's becoming degrading.

 

You can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time. If you don't agree with the site team's decisions, you don't have to donate or even belong to the group. It's a personal choice.

[blue4ever]

There are people waiting for answers on there first post check them out COME ON CAGGERS were here to help the NEWBIES

Cheers B4E

NEVER TALK TO A ---D.C.A ON THE TELE[PHONE UNLESS YOU`RE DMD

GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING

 

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w.../CAG-LIBEL.jpg

forum-rules-please-read

ConsumerWiki - A-Z Index

PLEASE DONATE TO CAG,EVERY LITTLE HELPS

--------------------------------

Any Advice given by me is based on solely on my experiance or opnion. I have no Legal background.

If i have helped in any way please feel free to click my scales

Thank You blue4ever:grin:

[tonycee]

You can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time. If you don't agree with the site team's decisions, you don't have to donate or even belong to the group. It's a personal choice.

 

Well said.

 

I think it incredibly selfish of anybody to even think that they can question the judgement of the decision to defend the claim.

 

Its people like that, that are more likely to be the reason for any site closure, than the claim itself.

 

After years of selfless involvement in getting the site where it is today, the team ask for a little help in return, and people question that request ???????

 

I think that ANYBODY who even has the front to think that its the wrong decision, is bordering on being rude.,

 

I said it before, and i will say it again.

 

If you support the site, PUT UP. If not SHUT UP.

[MrShed]

Well said.

 

I think it incredibly selfish of anybody to even think that they can question the judgement of the decision to defend the claim.

 

Its people like that, that are more likely to be the reason for any site closure, than the claim itself.

 

After years of selfless involvement in getting the site where it is today, the team ask for a little help in return, and people question that request ???????

 

Well done on bringing back up a fairly dead conversation.

 

Quite annoyed at that post.

 

I do not think it is incredibly selfish whatsoever - I said what I said with the best interests of the site at heart.

 

You could argue(and I was) that it is incredibly selfish to defend such a claim, of which there was no need to defend, with money acquired from people via donations they can ill afford.

 

You ask people to give money, but not to question why. That is fundamentally both wrong and stupid tony - and, indeed, highly selfish.

 

To perhaps reinforce my point, I personally have given a lot more to this forum than I have taken(without blowing my own trumpet), and as such, I feel that I am entitled to say something, being a key contributor in the tenants forums.

[tiglet]

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they aren't abusive. At the end of the day, this is a forum and therefore the correct context for debate - we may not all agree, but life wouldn't be the rich tapestry that it is if we all did, would it? I think we all agree this site is important and that this horrible business should be concluded as soon as possible with the least detriment to the site and owners as possible. However, we may disagree on how that is best achieved.

 

It's always important to question and I personally cannot see anyway that Mr Shed has been wrong in dong so. Debate has been opened up and, for the most part, has been incredibly civil.

 

As it happens, I don't agree with Mr Shed's opinion, but would certainly defend his right to hold that opinion, as I believe BF, Dave and the site team would too. That's what makes this site so great.

[nevos]

You could argue(and I was) that it is incredibly selfish to defend such a claim, of which there was no need to defend, with money acquired from people via donations they can ill afford.

 

The owners obviously saw it as real threat or perhaps, they wouldnt call for help to fund a defence via donations. I do beleive many people are 100 x better off for the free and trieless help they get on CAG. So why not put a bit back, seems reasonable. Most people will have no concept of how much it costs to run such a big site

[tonycee]

I think you are both wrong. End of.

 

And i dont care how annoyed any of you are.

 

The queston was, can you help ?, not what should we do ?.

 

All the facts have been posted for us to make a decision on whether we want to donate.

 

Despite posting the fact that their own money, and houses are on the line, they have STILL chosen to defend.,

 

So im sure that you questioned it with the best interest at heart, but,

 

NO people, you have NO RIGHT to bring their decision into question. None at all.

 

Just the right to decide whether you want to donate or not. Or even being part of this community.

[tonycee]

Sorry Nevos. I meant the 2 above you.

[SOD'EM]

I'm staying out of this one, except I will say. This site is free (obviously), but If there was a price to pay for the help I have received on it, then I would have paid it.

 

Regardless of any libel case.

[tiglet]

Tonycee, I'm not annoyed and I actually support BF and have made several posts to that effect and have tried to help in other ways too. However, I disagree that Mr Shed has no right to question whether there is a better way to do things.

[tonycee]

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they aren't abusive. At the end of the day, this is a forum and therefore the correct context for debate - we may not all agree, but life wouldn't be the rich tapestry that it is if we all did, would it? I think we all agree this site is important and that this horrible business should be concluded as soon as possible with the least detriment to the site and owners as possible. However, we may disagree on how that is best achieved.

 

I agree in principal with everything you say. I just dont agree that anybody has any right to publicly question the decisions of its founders.

 

It's always important to question and I personally cannot see anyway that Mr Shed has been wrong in dong so. Debate has been opened up and, for the most part, has been incredibly civil.

But the subject wasnt opened for debate. It was opened for help. Its only now being debated because some people think they are more important to the site, than the saving of the site itself.

 

As it happens, I don't agree with Mr Shed's opinion, but would certainly defend his right to hold that opinion, as I believe BF, Dave and the site team would too. That's what makes this site so great.

 

Opinions are given in open forums

 

THIS particular subject was never opened up as one.

 

Again, we werent asked for our opinion.

 

I'm not annoyed and I actually support BF and have made several posts to that effect and have tried to help in other ways too. However, I disagree that Mr Shed has no right to question whether there is a better way to do things.

 

My comment about annoyed was not directed at you.

 

Do you not think, after, in their own words, months of debate with solicitors, that they have made their decision based on whats best.

 

I have to date, failed to see how ANYBODY can question their decision.

[tolstoy]

Have just made small but perfectly formed donation.

 

I have no idea what all this hoo ha is about but I am glad the site is here and more than happy to make a contribution. Please feel free to use it to make a point, say it with flowers or put it on Debtors Revenge to win the 2:15 at Newmarket!

 

Good luck team!

[conar686]

Bookworm said: Before either of you tries to take the moral high ground, let me remind you that I personally think that it is all much ado about nothing and that the planned action is unreasonable, ill thought out and of no benefit to anyone that I can see. Common sense dictates that in a case like this, the aggressors are the ones who should withdraw. Maybe common sense is all that is needed in this instance?

I think it fair to say that there is 'no smoke without fire', if Karn did not genuinely feel that her character has been besmirched then why commence proceedings.

 

I think it unfair of BW for blowing this off as 'much ado about nothing' and from what I can see any aggression is sadly mostly one way and from this site.

 

IMHO BF and Dave should apologise and bring the matter to a close, if for no other reason than 'botching' the exit of Karn from their employ. I do not agree that they should do so publically.

 

Asking for funding in what is purely a personal matter is not something I can support. If the attack were from an organisation seeking to close CAG down then I'd be swift in writing a chq.

 

Set up a meeting buy Sharon lunch and then apologise. Job done everyone move on.