Page 3 of 3
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:32 am
Brice Manuel wrote:
Apologies, I misread previous post
No problem. It's the net, it happens
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:44 pm
Very educating thread. You can't buy advice as good as this.
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:09 pm
Tehehehe!! And I always thought I was in the middle of arguments on forums!!
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:14 pm
jcscar21 wrote:Tehehehe!! And I always thought I was in the middle of arguments on forums!!
sounds like you got something good to share with us
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:46 pm
jcscar21 sounds like he needs to be the center of arguments.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:41 pm
I am a business consultant.
I have read this thread with interest and wish to share my reaction:
a) On the face of it, it seems that the original inventor has genuine causes for grievance. On moral grounds, he deserves a sympathetic hearing. On the legal grounds, I would leave this matter up to the Courts to decide.
No one - not even a lawyer or a judge - can claim that he knows all the issues and that he can make a judgement.
b) Consequently, I do not understand why some people here want to act as Sean's mouthpieces in this matter.
Actually, Sean should discourage this rather than agreeing to their declarations.
For instance, it was claimed that the inventor is somehow making disparaging comments supposedly based on lies or libel. In thruth, the only insults I have read here come from the so-called 'mouthpieces' representing Sean.
If I were Sean, I would not have agreed that these mouthpieces portray his position correctly. The only correct position is that communicated through the lawyer.
c) One more thing: If these mouthpieces are linked to Sean in some way, then it would be fairer to declare this outright. It strikes me as grossly devious and/or unfair to represent that your opinion is independent whilst all you have to say goes in favour of one party.
I trust this matter will be resolved amicably and fairly, out of the Courts. Sometimes, all it takes is to say some nice words to the other party. It usually works a lot better than heavy handed threats.
Regards to all,