KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - horrible investigator Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:11 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
When I use the term "investigating," I am referring to the gathering of information for use in determining whether or not to sue an unlicensed operator or venue for infringement. We do not "investigate" licensed operators.

We do occasionally send representatives out to licensee shows. The purpose of these visits is usually just routine monitoring for compliance with the terms of the license, but sometimes we are responding to a complaint or a tip. We may or may not disclose these visits to the licensee, depending on our purposes. However, we DO NOT "investigate" licensees in the manner that we investigate unlicensed operators and venues.


Call it what you will. It doesn't matter what the reason is, or if it's better or worse then an unlicensed operator, PEP is investigating them. If PEP is looking into registered users, and without telling them. It's NOT a social visit.


It does matter what the reason is. When we're investigating an unlicensed user, we're there to gather information for use in preparing a lawsuit. When we're visiting a licensee, the purpose isn't to bring a lawsuit. It's to make sure that the licensee is meeting the terms of the license. If they aren't, then we work with the licensee to make appropriate changes. We're not trying to play "gotcha" with our licensees. We're simply making sure they are keeping to our standards, and helping them do so if they aren't.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
Quote:
We don't usually disclose the presence of our investigative teams in any given area, at least not until after they have completed their work. Generally speaking, if pirates get word that we are potentially investigating them, they will decline to play SC for a few days or a couple of weeks until they think the coast is clear.


Pretty much what I said: It's not a "gotcha" thing, it's a fact. PEP wants to make sure their investigations get to a satisfactory conclusion, nothing more. But you aren't going to tell anyone they have/have not been investigated 24/48 hours after doing it. So even if Paradigm was in fact looked over, PEP isn't going to say because they are in the area. No reason to alert the public until your done.


I would definitely tell a licensee that he was visited, even 24-48 hours after doing it, if he asked. We might not volunteer that information, especially if there wasn't a problem identified, because, frankly, we're busy and there's no reason to make a special effort to notify the licensee if no changes are needed. I would also have no problem telling a licensee that he wasn't visited on any given night.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
Quote:
Paradigm has nothing to worry about from us. He knows that. There is therefore no reason why he would need to "know the copyright lawyers in his area"--but, lest you get the wrong idea, I am not discouraging him from doing so. It's always a good idea to get information and advice from a experienced attorney who knows the issues and operates with your best interests in mind.


He might know that, but it seems that for one reason or another, someone was casing his show. I'm not saying it was PEP, but who's to say it's not.


I'm saying it wasn't us. The only reason I responded in the first place was because I was a little irritated at the suggestion that our investigators are so unprofessional that they would engage in the type of behavior described. They don't. More than 99% of our investigations conclude without the operator even suspecting that we were there. What's much more common is the "false positive"--the operator thinks, as in this case, that he's being watched by us, when we have not sent an investigator to that show.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
I'm sorry, but given the circumstances most of us really can't take the word of a PEP lawyer who's paycheck is attached to the interests of the company they work for. I never said he SHOULD get a lawyer, but it's always better to play it safe then to be sorry later.


What interest could I (or PEP) possibly have in investigating one of our top licensees, an early adopter of our program who has been a staunch anti-piracy advocate for many years? I believe you've heard me say many times on this board that our resources are limited. Spending time and money to "investigate" a licensee about whom we have no questions would be not only a waste of those resources on an unproductive task, but also a lost opportunity to use those resources on something more productive.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:
It does matter what the reason is. When we're investigating an unlicensed user, we're there to gather information for use in preparing a lawsuit. When we're visiting a licensee, the purpose isn't to bring a lawsuit. It's to make sure that the licensee is meeting the terms of the license. If they aren't, then we work with the licensee to make appropriate changes. We're not trying to play "gotcha" with our licensees. We're simply making sure they are keeping to our standards, and helping them do so if they aren't.


You talking about what PEP is doing with the outcome. I'm reading from what you've said on this thread: that your occasionally go to some registered licencees without an announcement be it on a tip, etc.. While PEP's intent might be different because they are registered, you aren't there on a social call, You aren't there to meet with Paradigm in person or to give him a new CD or award. You are making sure they are compliant, and for that, you aren't going to give them advanced notice, etc. Depending on how compliant they are will determine how that are handled after your... lets call it "review", if the word will make you feel better.

Quote:
I would definitely tell a licensee that he was visited, even 24-48 hours after doing it, if he asked. We might not volunteer that information, especially if there wasn't a problem identified, because, frankly, we're busy and there's no reason to make a special effort to notify the licensee if no changes are needed. I would also have no problem telling a licensee that he wasn't visited on any given night.

I'm saying it wasn't us. The only reason I responded in the first place was because I was a little irritated at the suggestion that our investigators are so unprofessional that they would engage in the type of behavior described. They don't. More than 99% of our investigations conclude without the operator even suspecting that we were there. What's much more common is the "false positive"--the operator thinks, as in this case, that he's being watched by us, when we have not sent an investigator to that show.


You wouldn't tell them or anyone else what you are doing in a public forum (Via private message is a different story). It gives your position away to admit you are there, with possible pirates scattering into the wind. I actually believe you that your company most likely didn't visit Paradigm, but you would be hard pressed to give a truthful answer in a public space. So the default answer is going to be "no we weren't there" from PEP in a place like this. As for the "volunteering" of information, well if the KJ doesn't know, they can't really ask can they?

If Paradigm 100% believed that he was not looked over by PEP, this thread would not exist.

I don't know the policy on how your investigators work, and I am inclined to believe they do it as covertly as possible. However, unless you personally are training them, and then flying them to locations across the US, their might be some people who could fail the task if they aren't under PEP's direct control. Even if they are that inept, it's probably too late for someone who is on your radar to do anything about an incoming lawsuit or disciplinary action anyway, and any issues have still been recorded by said inept person.

Quote:
What interest could I (or PEP) possibly have in investigating one of our top licensees, an early adopter of our program who has been a staunch anti-piracy advocate for many years? I believe you've heard me say many times on this board that our resources are limited. Spending time and money to "investigate" a licensee about whom we have no questions would be not only a waste of those resources on an unproductive task, but also a lost opportunity to use those resources on something more productive.


That's Simple: PEP is investigating their product, and making sure users are compliant. Depending on the outcome of any investigation with a registered user, PEP has several options. PEP might give them a friendly warning, cancel their registration and/or make them switch to a HELP licence or if they have totally stepped over the line, file a lawsuit. So there is money involved.

I don't believe the task is unproductive. These people signed contracts with PEP about what they can and can't do with the product. Your company is looking to make sure they comply. It makes sense to me that if your investigators are in the area, what's an additional stop to make sure one of your registered users are indeed keeping up with their end of the deal?

It's not just PEP either: lots of companies look into copyright issues and even if someone is allowed to use a logo trademark or image, it doesn't mean that a company won't take offense if its used incorrectly. I just heard a story about Jack Daniels a week or two ago who was quite friendly towards an author who spoofed the JD logo. It was a very polite cease and desist letter. They were very nice about it and even offered to help with costs to redesign the (dust?)cover of his book in fact for the 2nd printing.

For the record: I fully believe that Paradigm is operating 100% legally, and feel exactly as many of us here do about piracy, which is to say he's against it.

@ Paradigm: MY apologies if I have or am offending you in any way.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
LOL, whatever.

We don't operate in the manner you're suggesting, but if you want to be paranoid about it, I guess it's a free country.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:
LOL, whatever.

We don't operate in the manner you're suggesting, but if you want to be paranoid about it, I guess it's a free country.


Your the one who brought up that you "secret shop" registered users, not anyone else.

JimHarrington wrote:

(4) We do "secret shop" our licensees periodically just to make sure they are following the terms of the license, but that would not involve behavior like this. (The whole point of that exercise is to make an undetected visit.) And we aren't doing that in Arizona right now anyway.


So you investigate your registered users to make sure they are compliant. Sorry that you don't like how that sounds, but you are the one who put it out there.

And I've never said it was unwarranted, just that you do it. Although admittedly I don't use the cute terms you use.

So who's being paranoid, as well as dismissive?

But you are right "Whatever" LOL


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:49 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
Your the one who brought up that you "secret shop" registered users, not anyone else.


You keep using the term "registered users." We don't have "registered users" for the Sound Choice product. We have licensees. We are required by law to do at least some monitoring of our licensees for compliance. You make it sound like something nefarious, when in fact it's a very normal function of trademark licensing. And you have practically accused me of lying about whether we were doing it in Arizona two nights ago. Why would I lie about that?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:19 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1663 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
Your the one who brought up that you "secret shop" registered users, not anyone else.


You keep using the term "registered users." We don't have "registered users" for the Sound Choice product. We have licensees. We are required by law to do at least some monitoring of our licensees for compliance. You make it sound like something nefarious, when in fact it's a very normal function of trademark licensing. And you have practically accused me of lying about whether we were doing it in Arizona two nights ago. Why would I lie about that?


Sound like he might approve of restaurants getting inspected.......just once.

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:03 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
I believe Harrington when he says:
JimHarrington wrote:
I'm saying it wasn't us.
Because I don't think he's done anything in Arizona for a loooong while. Even though just 6 months ago, he told Paradigm that he had an investigator and an attorney in place...

Nothing has happened..... at all.... despite receiving plenty of leads about pirates...

Nope.

Not a thing....

Carry on...


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5105
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
for the record guys....
i don't believe Jim SENT an investigator after me, my belief was that an investigator was just doing what we have seen before, just pulling karaoke shows from the web and going.
i am not afraid of getting "got", i think i have made my ideals on piracy very clear over the years.
i was very perturbed that some jack a$$ was wasting time in my venue and not at some reported pirates venue.
to date, i only personally know a few of those who have been sued, and the information on the lawsuit was so far from reality that someone picking some karaoke bar from the web, taking pictures, and using names online was not out of the realm of possibility...it has been done (though it WAS done BEFORE Jim came into the picture i do believe) and have not seen any since then to see the difference first hand.
i know Jim would see my name and move on, as much as i push on him, he knows where i ultimately stand on the end goal and i still give reports when i find something worth investigating. same goal, different methods.
his answer of "it wasn't us, we are not investigating there now" satisfies me.
My apologies to Jim for getting him irritated at this.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
chrisavis wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
Your the one who brought up that you "secret shop" registered users, not anyone else.


You keep using the term "registered users." We don't have "registered users" for the Sound Choice product. We have licensees. We are required by law to do at least some monitoring of our licensees for compliance. You make it sound like something nefarious, when in fact it's a very normal function of trademark licensing. And you have practically accused me of lying about whether we were doing it in Arizona two nights ago. Why would I lie about that?


Sound like he might approve of restaurants getting inspected.......just once.


If you are referring to me, I wrote this:

JimHarrington wrote:
What interest could I (or PEP) possibly have in investigating one of our top licensees, an early adopter of our program who has been a staunch anti-piracy advocate for many years? I believe you've heard me say many times on this board that our resources are limited. Spending time and money to "investigate" a licensee about whom we have no questions would be not only a waste of those resources on an unproductive task, but also a lost opportunity to use those resources on something more productive.


Toastedmuffin wrote:
That's Simple: PEP is investigating their product, and making sure users are compliant. Depending on the outcome of any investigation with a registered user, PEP has several options. PEP might give them a friendly warning, cancel their registration and/or make them switch to a HELP licence or if they have totally stepped over the line, file a lawsuit. So there is money involved.

I don't believe the task is unproductive. These people signed contracts with PEP about what they can and can't do with the product. Your company is looking to make sure they comply. It makes sense to me that if your investigators are in the area, what's an additional stop to make sure one of your registered users are indeed keeping up with their end of the deal?


Sorry about the multiple edits, seems my computer doesn't want to behave today.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:37 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) The fact is that after nearly 8 years of a legal quest, less than 2% of the estimated hosts have dealt with or been investigated. In over 19 years of professional hosting plus my retirement time, I have only personally met one host approached by SC aka PEP. When it was discovered he had no assets, the matter was dropped. This host is still playing today in the Inland Empire. At least in California there is more of a chance you will be audited by the I.R.S, than by SC. All this concern over investigators is over blown. Jim has admitted that PEP is a small, little, tiny weenie company, with few resources. They are after the low hanging fruit and are not going to spend too much in trying to get little or no return on their legal investment period.


Last edited by The Lone Ranger on Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:54 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1663 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
8) The fact is that after nearly 8 years of a legal quest, less than 2% of the estimated hosts have dealt with or been investigated. In over 19 years of professional hosting plus my retirement time, I have only personally met one host approached by SC aka PEP. When it was discovered he had no assets, the matter was dropped. This host is still playing today in the Inland Empire. At least in California there is more of a chance you will be audited by the I.R.S, than by SC. All this concern over investigators is over blown. Jim has admitted that PEP is a small, little, tiny weenie company, with few resources. They are after the low hanging fruit and are not going to spend too much in trying to get little or no return on their legal investment period.


Why would Irish militants care about karaoke legalities?

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:34 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) Sorry I meant the I.R.S. you get the meaning. Must be because it's near St. Patrick's day, watch out for the PEP inspector's. :party: :party: :party:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
i don't believe Jim SENT an investigator after me, my belief was that an investigator was just doing what we have seen before, just pulling karaoke shows from the web and going.


Our investigators don't work like that. I can't speak to what APS might have been doing (in Arizona and elsewhere) years ago, but they've been out of the picture for a long time.

Our investigative process is much more involved than picking a show from the web and going to it. We identify targets, run preliminary checks, send letters to venues, and do heavy research into the various players involved. Only then do we send out an investigator to gather evidence to support a claim.

An investigator who freelances in the manner you're describing wouldn't be paid for the work, because it's not useful to us. All of our teams know our process and follow it. So that tells me it's not a real investigator, but somebody who's either trying to scare you (or your venue).


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:30 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:

Our investigators don't work like that. I can't speak to what APS might have been doing (in Arizona and elsewhere) years ago, but they've been out of the picture for a long time.

Our investigative process is much more involved than picking a show from the web and going to it. We identify targets, run preliminary checks, send letters to venues, and do heavy research into the various players involved. Only then do we send out an investigator to gather evidence to support a claim.

An investigator who freelances in the manner you're describing wouldn't be paid for the work, because it's not useful to us. All of our teams know our process and follow it. So that tells me it's not a real investigator, but somebody who's either trying to scare you (or your venue).


8) You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California? This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire? Isn't SC still owed around $300,000.00 collected by APS that was never paid to them? Some of that money came from the operators in California that settled out of court for $5,000.00 a piece. Later judge Wright threw the cases that weren't settled out of court, and those operators didn't pay one dime. In hindsight I bet those hosts feel very stupid to have settled, and you wonder why hosts fight back, really?

I guess PEP has learned it's lesson the hard way about subcontracting out their investigations and legal matters, or have they? They still have to hire investigators and lawyers in states they are trying to push their legal agenda. That is part of the hold up in Arizona, that PEP couldn't get good help at the price they were willing to pay? If you rely on contingency as payment you run the same risk as hiring someone like APS don't you? After all they were working on contingency also and just decided to keep the money collected to cover their costs, that is why you didn't get any, wasn't it? Of course you are supervising the whole operation this time, aren't you Jim so there won't be a repeat of the APS scandal, right? Seems like you have enough spare time to come on here if that is the case then you shouldn't be saying any one agent of yours went rogue, right? So if something happens this time both you and PEP are going to have to own it aren't you?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:20 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California? This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire?

Absolutely not. That only applies when you are PEP suing a venue. They have no problem stating the that venue is responsible for their subcontractor (KJ's) when it comes to infringement, but they certainly aren't responsible when their own subcontractor strays outside of honesty and ethics as long as they are getting some money for it.

See how that works?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:38 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
8) You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California? This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire? Isn't SC still owed around $300,000.00 collected by APS that was never paid to them? Some of that money came from the operators in California that settled out of court for $5,000.00 a piece. Later judge Wright threw the cases that weren't settled out of court, and those operators didn't pay one dime. In hindsight I bet those hosts feel very stupid to have settled, and you wonder why hosts fight back, really?

I guess PEP has learned it's lesson the hard way about subcontracting out their investigations and legal matters, or have they? They still have to hire investigators and lawyers in states they are trying to push their legal agenda. That is part of the hold up in Arizona, that PEP couldn't get good help at the price they were willing to pay? If you rely on contingency as payment you run the same risk as hiring someone like APS don't you? After all they were working on contingency also and just decided to keep the money collected to cover their costs, that is why you didn't get any, wasn't it? Of course you are supervising the whole operation this time, aren't you Jim so there won't be a repeat of the APS scandal, right? Seems like you have enough spare time to come on here if that is the case then you shouldn't be saying any one agent of yours went rogue, right? So if something happens this time both you and PEP are going to have to own it aren't you?


When did you stop beating your wife?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:17 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:

When did you stop beating your wife?



8) My Dad once told me" If you have to beat them to keep them you better let them go". Maybe it is time to let go of this legal farce of yours? If you are not going to take seriously the overseeing of your minions, then you should get out of the suits drives sales business Jim. You are going to be responsible for their actions, you are going to have to own it, you and Kurt, so deal with it.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:59 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2394
Been Liked: 326 times
JimHarrington wrote:
The Lone Ranger wrote:
8) You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California? This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire? Isn't SC still owed around $300,000.00 collected by APS that was never paid to them? Some of that money came from the operators in California that settled out of court for $5,000.00 a piece. Later judge Wright threw the cases that weren't settled out of court, and those operators didn't pay one dime. In hindsight I bet those hosts feel very stupid to have settled, and you wonder why hosts fight back, really?

I guess PEP has learned it's lesson the hard way about subcontracting out their investigations and legal matters, or have they? They still have to hire investigators and lawyers in states they are trying to push their legal agenda. That is part of the hold up in Arizona, that PEP couldn't get good help at the price they were willing to pay? If you rely on contingency as payment you run the same risk as hiring someone like APS don't you? After all they were working on contingency also and just decided to keep the money collected to cover their costs, that is why you didn't get any, wasn't it? Of course you are supervising the whole operation this time, aren't you Jim so there won't be a repeat of the APS scandal, right? Seems like you have enough spare time to come on here if that is the case then you shouldn't be saying any one agent of yours went rogue, right? So if something happens this time both you and PEP are going to have to own it aren't you?


When did you stop beating your wife?


Not only do I find that response to be offensive, I also consider it to be slanderous. A person in your profession should know better than to make things personal, no matter what. You could and should be held accountable for making remarks like that. I honestly am shocked by a statement like that. It may seem funny to you, but it is simply not funny at all.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
mrscott wrote:
Not only do I find that response to be offensive, I also consider it to be slanderous. A person in your profession should know better than to make things personal, no matter what. You could and should be held accountable for making remarks like that. I honestly am shocked by a statement like that. It may seem funny to you, but it is simply not funny at all.


I wasn't intending to be funny. I was making a point about the smugness of his questions. No one would seriously think I was accusing him of having beaten his wife. And it was no more offensive and slanderous than what I was responding to, yet you complain about me? It's one set of rules for me, and one set for everyone else?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:25 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2394
Been Liked: 326 times
JimHarrington wrote:
mrscott wrote:
Not only do I find that response to be offensive, I also consider it to be slanderous. A person in your profession should know better than to make things personal, no matter what. You could and should be held accountable for making remarks like that. I honestly am shocked by a statement like that. It may seem funny to you, but it is simply not funny at all.


I wasn't intending to be funny. I was making a point about the smugness of his questions. No one would seriously think I was accusing him of having beaten his wife. And it was no more offensive and slanderous than what I was responding to, yet you complain about me? It's one set of rules for me, and one set for everyone else?


The other comments that preceded your statement were made from a viewpoint outside your own. You may not agree with what they had said, that is fine. I believe you have a right to your opinion and viewpoint as well. But your comment was plainly rude and offensive. You are a professional, a licensed practicing lawyer and you make a comment like that, so "yes" a different set of rules for you indeed.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech