My board is bigger than your board

Originally posted by leagleaze
You can post new threads in virtually every board already. You simply cannot do it in the three larger boards, politics, fashion and this one. See here for more information. http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/mis...&page=2#topics

And welcome by the way

Great! Now we just need to teach the users to get out of their "Infirmation--all in one thread" frame of mind.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Mrs. Malevolent
Great! Now we just need to teach the users to get out of their "Infirmation--all in one thread" frame of mind.

Yeah, good luck with that one

[St.Pat]

(1) what are the copyright/licensing rules here?
(2) are you interested in dicussing joing copyright/licensing efforts...


St.(just in case...)Pat

P.S.: Will understand all flames as long as all flamers are prepared for retort/acountability

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by St.Pat
(1) what are the copyright/licensing rules here?

Other than this?

(2) are you interested in dicussing join[t] copyright/licensing efforts...

Like what?

[St.Pat]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Other than this?

Yes; other than that.



Like what?

There are certain provisions of "that" which, if certain infirmation becomes available, would be unacceptable. While obviously understanding your skepticism, which I share, I would be interested in modifications to the licensing agreement and perhaps mutually profitable co-licensing agreements in the event certain developments provide mutual assurances that it is in our mutual interest...mutually. In short, maybe I just want a "real" person with whom to discuss this who has an open mind and with whom I may convey information as it develops.

It would help if they were a Patriots fan...or at least were not Bills fans. I reserve comment on any restriction on Jet fans.

Kevin

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sadly, I am not a real person. I am a fictional character in an encyclopedic novel by a noted recluse. I have it on good authority, however, that Leagl is a real person, and that there are other real people here with names like Slave and e/o. Mister Ruysbroeck may be real, but he may also be Flemish mystic, though no one can prove it. Perhaps one of them can understand what it is you want and propose. I have read your post at least twice now, and I find it elusive.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by St.Pat
There are certain provisions of "that" which, if certain infirmation becomes available, would be unacceptable. While obviously understanding your skepticism, which I share, I would be interested in modifications to the licensing agreement and perhaps mutually profitable co-licensing agreements in the event certain developments provide mutual assurances that it is in our mutual interest...mutually. In short, maybe I just want a "real" person with whom to discuss this who has an open mind and with whom I may convey information as it develops.

It would help if they were a Patriots fan...or at least were not Bills fans. I reserve comment on any restriction on Jet fans.

Kevin

Wow. That there is some legal speak. Though to be honest I'm not quite clear on what it is you want, besides co-licensing agreements which might be mutually profitable...mutually.

Regardless, this site is a labor of love of a variety of people and I happen to be the head sucker, um person. So I guess I would be the one you would want to contact. Email me at info@lawtalkers.com

I am fond of the Patriots, though I cannot say I am a fan, not particularly interested in the Bills, and feel that the Jets are just unfortunate.

Regards,

Leagleaze

(And as far as I know I am a real person. Unless we are all just living in someone's dreamworld or something, which is highly possible.)

[Theres and Thats]

Originally posted by St.Pat
There are certain provisions of "that" which, if certain infirmation becomes available, would be unacceptable.

I take great offense to this.

We all need more theres and thats.

[Chunky Monkey]

Originally posted by Theres and Thats
We all need more theres and thats.

Indeed. And any board called the 'big' board needs more robust puppies.

[leagleaze]

I logged on this morning to a PM which contained some links to infirmation.

The PM referred to the following posts on the SF Board numbered:

26161
26162
26163
26165


It would seem, according to these posts that someone deleted some posts about Carr & Ferrell LLP. The last post informs them that dammit they aren't going to take it any more and they are going to create a new board where there is no censorship.

Apparently we should advertise more.

Regardless, if our friends should need a place they are, of course, welcome here. And to do them a favor, I will summarize the gist of the posts over on the SF Board. Not that I am suggesting that the present posts which I number above will disappear. But you know, just in case there is some sort of technological glitch or something.

Here

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

linky

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by bridge of love(on the fashion board)
in other news of law firm/greddy boards conflicts.......Gina T., the CEO of the Michigan H&H firm has stepped down. Gina was "credited" with threatening Yahoo with suit after a post on the old-old boards that listed confidential H&H info. Yahoo immediately killed at least the Detroit board, if not all of its boards. Once new boards popped up, Gina was the subject of many hateful posts.

Ultimately, her administration is seen as a failure by those still at thew firm.

It really seems to me that when people do this they only make the situation worse. If it isn't truly confidential or truly defamation it isn't worth the trouble that will happen later on, when the folks pop up somewhere else with supporters not because of anything that originally happened, but because of the attempt at control.

And in fact unless the information is that important and confidential or that damaging when it comes to defamation, you might as well not bother. It will die down sooner that way.

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by leagleaze
It really seems to me that when people do this they only make the situation worse. If it isn't truly confidential or truly defamation it isn't worth the trouble that will happen later on, when the folks pop up somewhere else with supporters not because of anything that originally happened, but because of the attempt at control.

And in fact unless the information is that important and confidential or that damaging when it comes to defamation, you might as well not bother. It will die down sooner that way.

I think the "ignore and it will die" path took awhile to develop, but is the only way to handle a negetive post. Gina's action was early in the boards history, but to this day, there has never been a single post about this firm that is not negative. there aren't even lukewarm neutral posts.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bridge of love
Gina's action was early in the boards history, but to this day, there has never been a single post about this firm that is not negative. there aren't even lukewarm neutral posts.

This is the fitting natural consequence of a firm threatening its GAs for viewing or posting on these boards. As much as a firm fears its GAs shitting on them on the boards, the more likely scenario is that disgruntled people will quit and then shit on their prior firm. While they're still there, there more likely to post about job openings or complain about broken refrigerators while professing a deep love for their potential future earnings.

[Adder]

Originally posted by leagleaze
If it isn't truly confidential or truly defamation it isn't worth the trouble that will happen later on, when the folks pop up somewhere else with supporters not because of anything that originally happened, but because of the attempt at control.

If it is truly that important and confidential, it's probably true.