[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #1659
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:11:24 -0600
> From: "pets" <pw at petswarehouse_com>
> Subject: RE: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #1658
>
> Gregory,
> Your comments are inaccurate; there is no gloating by the
> Plaintiff at all. The post that was not placed on this list
> but on the Plaintiff's was to report the facts of the case
> accurately rather than have people draw their own conclusions.
Mr Novak,
I don't know a single reasonable person who could follow this issue and
NOT see your post to your OWN website (and your one-liner in THIS list)
as a gloating issue, ESPECIALLY when viewing the ensuing posts about it
(and "Jack's" fun post in the PetsForum).
I would accuse you of masterminding a long-term pogrom to start a bogus
lawsuit in order to drag more people into it through angry comments...
But I simply cannot credit you with that much intelligence and
foresight, in light of the past events and evidence.
> <Implies that you believe you have them over a barrel?>
>
> That is not the case at all! Your wrong.
Then what IS the case Bob? Feel free to email me off list if you want.
What I see (and many others) is this (and I've got a very detailed file
I've been collecting since I became aware of this issue):
1 - Some people legitimately related complaints about your service. I
see NO EVIDENCE that they "made up" those stories. I actually see
evidence to support they got bad service.
2 - You sued them and the list that carried them.
[ THIS, in itself, would earn you a nice big fat lawsuit in MY state ]
3 - Lots of people got enraged at your gall.. Posted how angry they were
about it.. (and certainly some made some passionate statements about
their opinions!!.. Who could blame them?).
4 - People set up a defense fund and put banners on their site and did
what they could to "tell the world" about your foolishness..
5 - You sued the people in #3 and #4... AND raised the stakes against
the original poster by accusing him of "hacking" (this is rediculous of
course).
6 - You and your cronies (you here, Jack and another in PetsForum)
"baited" people who spoke about it. Emailed people OFFLIST when they
made comments; with little "threats". My printed files of all the
"Jack" statements are fun enough to review.
7 - Around Christmas, you announced a "SETTLEMENT". The defendants could
NOT publically speak about what they were being asked for in the
settlement. When you announced it, no settlement existed.. Only an OFFER
to settle.. This had a chilling effect on the defense fund (again, was
this your plan? ).
8 - SILENCE... SILENCE... While everyone's waiting to see what's
happening with this... Meanwhile, defense fund dwindles.. Everyone
HOPING we can call it OVER.
9 - And NOW THIS...
How can you expect ANY reasonable person to watch this circus and NOT be
enraged! Was this not your plan? This is the kind of behaviour I expect
to see in elementary school, but certainly not in adults! (perhaps I'm a
bit naïve).
> <Honestly, this is going to wake up an even bigger beast you
> cannot tame. Wouldn't NOW be the right time to be noble and
> put all this nonsense to? rest?>
>
> That is why the smart defendants settled, your question
> should be directed to Barr, Rosenstein Hudson and the others
> who wish to continue at the direct expense of all the people
> who have donated money.
Bob, I don't blame the people who dropped out of the settlement. I
wouldn't have settled. They simply couldn't stomach your terms. They
were not in the wrong. You figured they'd cave in because the defense
fund was dwindling (and your December posting regarding the settlement
HELPED that happen).
Someone who put up a banner ad on their website leading to the defense
fund is NOT in the wrong (not by any law in ANY state of our union).
Someone who hosts a list where a complaint is posted is NOT in the wrong
(again, not by any law in ANY state of our union).
There is no conspiracy here other than YOUR conspiracy (a campaign of
financial and emotional terrorism) to drag 'em through your lawsuit
until they cave because they can't take it anymore.
> We tried very hard to put this issue to rest; it is not the
> plaintiff at this juncture that needs to be noble.
I'm sorry Bob, but that dog won't hunt.
One needs ONLY to read the REST of your posts to see the underlying
truth here... You can't paint yourself a saint here..
Bob, you told Tom Barr;
"Why to keep you out digging in your own pocket?"
...in response to his urging everyone not to get baited by you, and to
donate to the defense fund.
This ONE STATEMENT shows what a BULLY you are! (as if we needed more
examples). How horrible is it that a PLAINTIFF comes into the crowd SO
OFTEN to bully the defendants in public? (that's going to be an
interesting angle in court to be sure!).
As you know, I have been a considerable supporter of the defense fund in
terms of money, public awareness and commitment. Some of the defendants
in your lawsuit are defendants ONLY because of their support of the
defense fund itself (banners and/or public awareness). Does that mean I
get my own copy of your amended complaint? Shall I tell you where I can
take service of process?
Apologies to the others on this list for carrying the thread forward. It
took a GREAT GREAT deal of restraint not to reply to ALL of the posts in
this particular digest issue (I cannot tell you how angry I am)..
Honestly, I admire List-Mom for even letting you REMAIN on this list..
Gregory F Gooden
------------------------------------------
http://www.myfishbox.com/members/ggooden
------------------------------------------